Champa Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:47514 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7430 of 2025 Ramin Bai Netam W/o Balram Singh Netam Aged About 51 Years R/o Kotmisonar, Tehsil Akaltara, Distt Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Aishwarya Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.09.2025 Order on Board 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as she has been arrested in connection with Crime No.233/2025, registered at Police Station-Akaltara, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409 and Section 34 of IPC. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the applicant/accused has been charged under Sections 420 and 409 read with Section 34 IPC for committing the punishable offence, inasmuch as, on the 2 complaint of the complainant, Pradeep Kumar Soni, former member of District Panchayat Janjgir-Champa, an inquiry team was constituted and upon inquiry into the said complaint, it was found that the applicant/accused, while serving as the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kotmisonar during the financial years 2022–23 and 2023–24, fraudulently withdrew an amount of ₹25,13,558/- from the 15th Finance Commission grant without obtaining approval of works in the Gram Panchayat meetings or passing of Panchayat resolutions, and further, no work was carried out against the withdrawn amount. Based on the written complaint lodged by the Chief Executive Officer at Police Station Akaltara, Crime No. 233/2025 under Sections 420, 409 read with Section 34 IPC has been registered against the applicant/accused and another co- accused. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that that no prima facie case is made out against her, as she is innocent and has been falsely implicated on the basis of an illegal and arbitrary departmental enquiry conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, without affording her proper opportunity of hearing. There is no material on record to suggest that the alleged transactions were bogus in nature, nor has the prosecution been able to establish the essential ingredients of Section 3(5) BNS, as there is no evidence of pre-concert, meeting of minds or common intention with the co-accused, and at best, the applicant’s role is isolated and limited. The enquiry itself was tainted, being influenced by an interested witness against whom the applicant had earlier 3 lodged a complaint of illegal demand of bribe, and the said complaint was never properly enquired into. The prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions, omissions and improvements, making the case highly doubtful, and it is a settled principle that conviction cannot rest solely on the testimony of an interested witness unless corroborated by independent evidence, and that where two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must prevail. Implicating the applicant in this fictitious manner amounts to arbitrariness, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the applicant, who is a mother of two minor children aged 13 and 16 years and is presently in custody, undertakes to cooperate fully with the trial and abide by any condition imposed by this Court, including stringent restrictions if deemed necessary. Hence, he prays to enlarge the present applicant on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has no criminal antecedent however, from perusal of the case diary, it is indicated that the applicant/accused, in collusion with another co-accused, while holding the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kotmisonar, committed a serious offence of misappropriating ₹25,13,558/- by fraudulently withdrawing the 15th Finance Commission funds from the Government without obtaining approval or sanction of the Gram Panchayat and without executing the alleged works. Accordingly, considering the circumstances of the case and the acts of the 4 applicant/accused, it is not found appropriate to grant the benefit of bail to the applicant/accused. 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 11.06.2025 and the fact that in the present case, charge- sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant being a lady and also having two minor child and has no previous criminal antecedent and no further interrogation is required and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 6. Let applicant, Ramin Bai Netam, involved in Crime No.233/2025, registered at Police Station-Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409 and Section 34 of IPC, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i)The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient 5 cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section Section 209 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. 7. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Kunal Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice