1 2026:CGHC:11053 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2004 of 2026 Akhilesh Singh S/o - Harpal Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o- Emliduggu Bypass Road, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Korba, C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sakti, Distt. Sakti, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.03.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 7/2025 registered at Police Station – Sakti, District - Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(2), 318(4),111(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 6, 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that in the year 2021, the present VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.03.03 15:29:42 +0530 2 applicant, along with other co-accused persons, opened an office of Flora Max Company at City Mall, Power House Road, Korba. The applicant is alleged to have acted as the Director/President of the said company and, in furtherance of a common intention, induced innocent women by showing them dreams of self-reliance and financial independence. It is alleged that the accused persons persuaded them to deposit amounts ranging from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month for engaging in small businesses such as sarees and ration items. In cases where the investors were unable to arrange the required amount, they were allegedly induced to obtain loans from various banks. The goods were arranged through the applicant and other co-accused persons, and the investors were lured with the promise of a commission of Rs. 2,700/- per month. The invested amounts were allegedly deposited in the accounts of the applicant and other co-accused persons in the name of Flora Max Company. It is further alleged that, by way of conspiracy and fraudulent inducement, the accused persons committed misappropriation and embezzlement of the invested funds. After completion of investigation, a case has been registered and the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that the allegations levelled against him are false, baseless, and malicious. It is contended that, as per the prosecution case itself, the investors used to invest money in the company by selling its products and, after depositing the sale proceeds with the company, were regularly receiving profits ranging from Rs. 2,700/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month or 3 approximately Rs. 100/- per day. All investors had allegedly received their profits and no complaint was lodged at any earlier point of time; however, subsequently, the present report was filed allegedly at the instance of some third person who misled the investors. It is further submitted that the complainants themselves were running the society after registering it and were performing roles similar to that of a director, yet they lodged the report without any justifiable reason, despite not having been cheated by the applicant or any other person. It is also submitted that a similarly placed co-accused, namely Raju Singh (M.Cr.C. No. 4440/2025), has already been enlarged on bail by this Hon’ble Court on the ground of prolonged detention, and the copy of the order is annexed as Annexure A-3. The applicant has been in custody since 20.11.2024, i.e., for more than one year, and although there are as many as 254 witnesses cited by the prosecution, the trial has not yet been concluded. It is further contended that multiple FIRs have been lodged at different places on the same set of facts. The applicant has not committed any act falling within the ambit of cheating or deception. He is a permanent resident of the stated address, there is no likelihood of his absconding, and he is ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant has four criminal antecedents, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and as the co-accused person, namely Santosh Das Manikpuri, has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 16293/2025 vide order dated 28.11.2025 on the ground of prolonged detention, and similarly placed co-accused persons, namely Raju Singh (M.Cr.C. No. 255/2026) and Ishwar Das Mahant (M.Cr.C. No. 10493/2025), have also been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court, and considering that the present applicant has been in custody since 27.01.2025, the case of the present applicant appears to be identical to that of the aforesaid co-accused persons. Moreover, as the charge- sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. 7. Let the bail of the Applicant – Akhilesh Singh, involved in Crime No. 7/2025 registered at Police Station – Sakti, District - Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(2), 318(4),111(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 6, 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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 5 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. 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 vaibhav