[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chhaya Chakrawarti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4055
1 MCRC-637-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 15 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 637 of 2026
CHHAYA CHAKRAWARTI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Singh Baghel - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri C.K. Mishra - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This is the third application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail in connection
with Crime No.446/2024 registered at Police Station - Kotwali, District Shahdol,
for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code. Applicant's first bail application was allowed with certain conditions vide
order dated 24.09.2024 passed in M.Cr.C.No.36204/2024 and second bail
application was also allowed with certain conditions vide order dated 21.03.2025
passed in M.Cr.C.No.3124/2025.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the
wife of co-accused Satyendra Chakrawarti. The applicant is an ANM and she
anyhow was not involved in preparation of bills, chalans, verification and
approval of the bills and the payment. If any forgery was done that was done by
her husband/Satyendra Chakrawarti and he has already been granted bail. The
applicant was released on conditional bail that too on depositing the total amount
of Rs.56,32,862/- as her account was used by her husband and she was ignorant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4055
2 MCRC-637-2026
from the offence.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant's first bail
application i.e. M.Cr.C. No.36204/2024 was allowed by order dated 24.09.2024
with a condition that Rs.56,32,862/- be deposited within 30 days. Thereafter, an
application for modification of order dated 24.09.2024 was allowed and 60 days'
time was extended from the date of order i.e. 23.10.2024 to deposit the amount of
Rs.56,32,862/-. Further, an application was filed in M.Cr.C.No.36204/2024 for
modification of order dated 23.10.2024 and that application was allowed and it
was clarified that the order dated 23.10.2024 shall be operative for the 10 days
only and if the fresh bail application is not filed by 27.01.2025, then this order
shall lose its efficacy. After that second bail application was filed and the
Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 21.03.2025 passed in
M.Cr.C.No.3124/2025 modified the order and granted the anticipatory bail on
depositing of 50% amount of Rs.56,32,862/- within 60 days from the date of order.
Further modification application was filed that was registered as M.Cr.C.
No.21577/2025, which was dismissed and that matter was challenged before the
Apex Court and the Apex Court by order dated 14.07.2025 passed in SLP(Crl.)
Diary No.31049/2025 has dismissed the petition.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that in the
subsequent event, Hon'ble the Apex Court vide order dated 28.07.2025 passed in
Cr.A.No.3219/2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10749/2025 (Gajanan Dattatray
Gore vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr.) has held that there shall not be a single
order that the High Courts and the Trial Courts shall pass for grant of regular bail
or anticipatory bail on the basis of any accused or his/her family members giving
an undertaking to deposit a particular amount. The plea shall be decided strictly on
the merits in accordance with law. On that basis, learned counsel for the applicant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4055
3 MCRC-637-2026
has submitted that this bail application be decided in light of above judgment.
5. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that when the SLP has
already been dismissed by Hon'ble the Apex Court, then this Court could not
entertain the petition afresh.
6. I have gone through the record.
7. When, two basic order and three modification orders were passed by this
Court and the applicant has filed a petition before the Apex Court and the Apex
Court has dismissed the petition, now, this Court, looking to the judicial propriety
could not entertain the bail afresh.
8. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is hereby dismissed.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
VB*
