Roshni Sahu vs State Government Department
2026 Latest Caselaw 470 Chatt

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 470 Chatt
Judgement Date : 13 March, 2026

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Roshni Sahu vs State Government Department on 13 March, 2026

Author: Parth Prateem Sahu

Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu

                                                          1




                                                                            2026:CGHC:12071
                                                                                    NAFR

                                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                             MCRCA No. 389 of 2026
                   1 - Roshni Sahu D/o Tikaram Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village
                   Raykona, P.S. Sarsiva, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh

                   2 - Sunita Sahu D/o Tikarama Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village
                   Raykona, P.S. Sarsiva, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh
                   (Sunita Sahu Wrongly Mentioned As Non-Applicant No. 2 In The Impugned
                   Order Dated 23-02-2026)
                                                                               --- Petitioner(s)
                                                      versus
                   1 - State Government Department Police Station Sarsiva, District Sarangarh-
                   Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh
                                                                           --- Respondent(s)

BALRAM (Cause title is taken from CIS system) PRASAD DEWANGAN

For Applicants : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate

For Respondent/State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 13/03/2026

1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of

anticipatory bail to the applicants who are apprehending their arrest in

connection with Crime No.131/2024 registered at Police Station

Sarsiwa, District - Sarangarh (C.G.) under Sections 420, 409, 406,

120-B & 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 6 & 10 of the C.G. Depositors

Interest Protection Act, 2005.

2. Case of prosecution in brief is that co-accused Chandrakala Sahu and

Dharmesh Sahu contacted complainant Saurabh Agrawal, Vishwajit

Khandekar, Tarun Sahu, Deepak Agrawal, Kamal Pradhan and

informed them that as per scheme, Shiva Sahu accepting deposit of

amount and returning back double the amount within 8 months and

monthly return of the amount at the rate of 30%. Relying upon the

words of applicants, complainants approached Shiva Sahu discussed

with him and thereafter as per whats-app chat, they handed over a

total sum of Rs.2 Crore in cash to Jhagesh Sahu. However, after some

time when they realized that they had been cheated, report was

lodged in concerned police-station.

3. Learned counsel for applicants would submit that applicants have

been falsely implicated in this case. Applicants were not named in the

FIR. Even in the final report, no participation in the commission of

crime has been attributed to applicants. Applicants have filed this bail

application for grant of anticipatory bail because they are sisters of

main accused Shiva Sahu and are under apprehension that they may

also be made accused. He also contended that main accused Shiva

Sahu and other co-accused alleged to have been actively participated

in the commission of crime have been enlarged on regular bail by this

Court in MCRC No.8993 of 2024, MCRC No. 4389 of 2024, MCRC

4165 of 2024, MCRC No. 4246 of 2024 and MCRC No.10464 of 2025.

Applicants are female members. Charge-sheet has been filed against

co-accused persons, therefore, benefit of anticipatory bail may be

extended to applicants. Applicants will make themselves available as

and when required for their presence or called for by the investigating

agency.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for

applicants, however, upon putting query as to whether applicants were

named anywhere, he submits that in the complaint filed by the

villagers in the subject name of applicant No.1 is mentioned. However,

upon further asking as to whether any participation of applicant No.1 is

alleged in the complaint, he submits that in the body of the compliant,

there is no such allegation.

5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents

placed on record.

6. On due consideration on the submission of learned counsel for

respective parties, material collected by the police, applicants are

female, other co-accused persons have been enlarged on regular bail

including the main accused Shiva Sahu in in MCRC No.8993 of 2024,

MCRC No. 4389 of 2024, MCRC 4165 of 2024, MCRC No. 4246 of

2024 and MCRC No.10464 of 2025, without commenting anything on

merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicants on

anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. It is directed

that in the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with the

aforesaid offence, they shall be released on bail upon each of them

executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the

like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. The applicants

shall also abide by the following conditions :

(i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for

interrogation before the investigating officer as and when

required;

(ii) that the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make

any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted

with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from

disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;