Smt. Jyoti Babli Kujur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.07.01 17:07:39 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:26654

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCRCA No. 919 of 2026

¶7

*** -** Smt. Jyoti Babli Kujur W/o Shri Arvind Uraon Aged About 33 Years Permanent R/o Churcha Colliery, P.S. Churcha, District Koriya, Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

*** -** State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Basantpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Non-Applicant

¶12

For Applicant : Ms. Vedagni Jangde, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Govt. Adv.

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶14

30/06/2026

¶15

This is the third bail application filed under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant who is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No. 50 of 2020, registered at Police Station- Basantpur, District BalrampurRamanujganj, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 (1-13) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶16

The first anticipatory bail application i.e. MCRCA No. 751 of 2023 was dismissed on merits vide order dated 10.10.2023. Subsequent anticipatory bail application i.e. MCRCA No. 84 of 2026 was dismissed on 15.01.2026. Thereafter the applicant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5029/2026 was

¶17

2

¶18

dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2026 and thereafter this third anticipatory bail application has been moved.

¶19

Ms. Vedagni Jangde, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant has delivered a child on 21.05.2026, therefore, she may be extended benefit of Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶20

On the other hand, Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/non-applicant would oppose. He would submit that the first and second applications for grant of anticipatory bail were rejected on merits and SLP preferred by the applicant was also dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2026 and therefore, this third anticipatory bail application may be dismissed.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶22

In the case, where the applicant is absconding since 01.05.2020 i.e. from the date of registration of F.I.R. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of G.R. Ananda Babu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another reported in (2021) 16 SCC 725 held that successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained or more so, when the case case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. It is also held that the specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge. The relevant paragraph no. 6 is reproduced herein below:-

¶23

“ 6. As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (Respondent 2) is absconding and not

¶24

3

¶25

cooperating with the investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge.”

¶26

In the present case also, the first two bail applications were rejected on merits. The applicant is absconding from 01.05.2020 i.e. from the date of registration of F.I.R. and second application was moved after lapse of 02 years without assigning sufficient reason.

¶27

As the applicant is not behind the bar and therefore, on the sole ground that she has delivered a child, application for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed.

¶28

Having considered the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this third anticipatory bail application fails and and is hereby dismissed .

¶29

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶30

vatti

Smt. Jyoti Babli Kujur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jyoti Babli Kujur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Kumar Tiwari Vs Secretary and General Manager

Sumani Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Tati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Union of India Vs General Secretary

Jaiprakash Shrivastava Vs Rashtriya Koyla Kamgar Sangh (Intuc)

Shree Ramdoot Ispat Private Limited, Vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Officer