1 2026:CGHC:7669 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No.1499 of 2026 Prakashmani Sahu S/o Pardesi Ram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Pahanda, Bhanthapara, Ranitarai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Gandhinagar, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant _____________________________________________________ For Applicant :Mr. TK Jha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State :Dr. Sourabh Pande, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.02.2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this 1st Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.02.12 10:47:17 +0530 2 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.232/2019 registered at Police Station – Gandhinagar, District Surguja (C.G.), for the offence under Section 420/34 IPC, under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act as also under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act. 2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant, Shiyaram Ekka lodged a report at Police Station Gandhinagar on 15.10.2019 alleging that during the year 2014–15 the Applicant, along with other co-accused persons, was associated with a Company namely “Shubh Sai Dikon Indian Limited Company” operating at Ambikapur. It is alleged that the Applicant and the co-accused induced the complainant and other persons to deposit money in the said company on the false promise of doubling the invested amount. The complainant is stated to have deposited a sum of Rs.13,000/- and was further persuaded to work as an agent to mobilize additional investors on similar assurances. However, no returns were provided to the investors and subsequently the Company closed its office and absconded. On the basis of the said allegations, an FIR was registered against the Applicant and other accused persons for the offence punishable under 3 Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and other relevant provisions. Hence, this application. 3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, who is behind the bars since 23.09.2025. He further submits that the Applicant has been arrayed as an accused solely on the basis of the memorandum of co-accused. He further submits that co-accused Dhirendra Kumar Dewangan in MCRC No. 4115/2021 vide order dated 29.07.2021, Pushpendra Dewangan and Smt. Seema Dewangan in MCRC No.5838/2021 vide order dated 02.09.2021 and Omprakash Dheevar in MCRC No.9123/2020 vide order dated 17.03.2021 have been granted bail by the co-ordinates Benches of this Court. He lastly submits that the complainant and other witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile and conclusion of trial is likely to take quite some time, therefore, the present Applicant may be granted bail on the grounds of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there are no previous criminal antecedents against the Applicant. However, he does not dispute that the co-accused have already been granted bail. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the Applicant that he is in custody since 23.09.2025, that his implication is stated to be based primarily on the memorandum of co- accused, that similarly placed co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Benches of this Court in the orders referred to hereinabove and further taking into account the submission that the complainant and other material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile, coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion and also in view of the State not disputing the grant of bail to co- accused and absence of any previous criminal antecedents of the applicant, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the present applicant on the ground of parity without further commenting anything on the merits of the case. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let Applicant- Prakashmani Sahu involved in Crime No. 232/2019 registered at Police Station – Gandhinagar, District Surguja (C.G.), for the offence under Section 420/34 IPC, under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act as also under Section 10 of 5 the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed 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 fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, 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 fixed 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 sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 6 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Priya