Parveen Begum v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O6cer, Police Station

: Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 26/11/2025 Order on Board

1. This is the ;rst bail application ;led under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 437/2025 registered at Police Station- Tikrapara, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the o=ence under Sections 112, 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 337, 340, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 and Section 3 of the Passport (Entry Into India) Act, 1920. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.06.2025, SHO Vinay 2 Singh Baghel received secret information that co-accused Dilawar Khan (husband of the applicant), a Bangladeshi national running an egg stall at Dharam Nagar, Main Road, Raipur, was illegally residing in Raipur by using a forged passport. Acting on this information, the police reached his residence and, upon examining his passport and other documents, found them to be forged and fabricated. During inquiry, the co-accused disclosed that he had been living in Raipur for the past 15 years and had also brought his wife (the applicant) and their daughter from West Bengal to Raipur, where he arranged for preparation of their passports as well. Based on these facts, the aforesaid o=ence was registered against both the applicant and the co-accused, and after due investigation, a charge-sheet has been ;led before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. Hence the present bail application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent lady who has been falsely implicated, and that nothing in the charge-sheet indicates her involvement in preparing any forged or fabricated passport or document, rather, her passport was duly issued by the competent authority after proper veri;cation. It is submitted that although the applicant’s husband admittedly belongs to Bangladesh, the applicant herself is a native of West Bengal, and both of them, after shifting to Raipur many years ago, have been residing there and earning their livelihood by doing small hawker- based business. It is further submitted that the applicant’s 15-year- old daughter is presently in the custody of the Child Care 3 Committee and her education is being seriously a=ected. He further submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and she is in jail since 13.06.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.

4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submit that the charge- sheet has already been ;led in the present case before the competent Court and also endorse the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant. He further submits that the applicant, along with the co-accused, was found in possession of forged and fabricated passports, and the co-accused has admitted to illegally residing in Raipur for 15 years and arranging similarly forged documents for the applicant as well. It is further submitted that the allegations involve serious o=ences a=ecting national security and identi;cation integrity, hence, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that the applicant is a native of West Bengal who, along with her husband, who admittedly belongs to Bangladesh, has been residing in Raipur for many years and earning livelihood through small hawker-based business, and further the applicant is a woman and her 15-year-old daughter is presently in the custody of the Child Care Committee, and her continued incarceration would further 4 prejudice the welfare and education of the child, she has no criminal antecedents and also considering the fact that in the present bail application the charge-sheet has been ;led before the competent Court and she is in jail since 13.06.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

7. Let the Applicant – Parveen Begum, involved in Crime No. 437/2025 registered at Police Station- Tikrapara, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the o=ence under Sections 112, 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 337, 340, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 and Section 3 of the Passport (Entry Into India) Act, 1920, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall ;le an undertaking to the e=ect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates ;xed 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 ;xed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without su6cient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date ;xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates ;xed 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 su6cient 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.

8. O6ce is directed to send a certi;ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Rahul Dewangan Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice