High CourtsSingle Bench

Neha Yadav vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 24 September 2025 · Citation: (2025) 09 MP CK 1054

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pramod Kumar Agrawal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 480(3), 483 · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 61(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 · Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 66D
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 43371 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 410 words

Pramod Kumar Agrawal, J

1.

This is the third application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.261/2024 registered at Police Station - Cyber Crime Branch, District - Bhopal (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) r/w 61(2) of BNS (Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120-B of IPC) and Section 66-D of IT Act. The applicant is in custody since 07.11.2024. Previous bail applications were dismissed as withdrawn.

2.

As per the prosecution story, the allegation against present applicant is that she along with co-accused committed fraud with the complainant. On the basis of which, offence has been registered against the present applicant under the aforesaid sections.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant is a lady and she is in custody since 07.11.2024. Applicant is not the main accused. Co-accused Kapil Yadav and other co-accused are the main accused persons. There was no conversation between the applicant and complainant. Compromise has taken place between the applicant and complainant. There is no criminal record of the applicant. Charge sheet has been filed. The conclusion of the trial will take considerable time, therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant may be released on bail.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of bail and prayed for it's rejection.

5.

Having taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting on merit of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. Consequently, bail application under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail filed on behalf of applicant, stands allowed.

6.

It is directed that applicant be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for her regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that she shall remain present before the concerned Court on all the dates fixed by it during trial. He shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 480(3) of BNSS.

7.

This order shall be effective till the end of the trial. However, in case of bail jump and breach of any of the conditions of bail, it shall become ineffective.

Certified copy as per rules.