1 2026:CGHC:321 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10493 of 2025 Ishwar Das Mahant S/o Mahesh Das Mahant Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Limgaon, Ward No. 8, Police Station-Urga, District- Korba Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer Police Station Champa District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Nayak, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.01.2026 1. This is the Second 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. 517/2024 registered at Police Station – Champa, District – Janjgir-Champa (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 earlier bail application of the present applicant was rejected by this Court on merits in MCRC No. 3125 of 2025 vide order dated 24.04.2025. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.01.06 11:06:33 +0530 2 3. The prosecution’s case is based on a report lodged by Neera Sahu at Police Station Champa, District Janjgir–Champa, alleging that the Chairman of Flora Foundation/Max Company, namely Akhilesh Singh, along with his associates, collected deposits from approximately 380 women, including the complainant, by promising to provide either goods or fixed returns. The complainant and the other women deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- each and initially received Rs. 2,700/- per month. Subsequently, the Chairman locked the ofÏce and absconded, thereby defrauding the women. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was registered under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interest Act. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the applicant and other accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by the Court vide order dated 24.04.2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 3125/2025. Therefore, the present second bail application is being filed on the ground that the identically situated co-accused, namely Santosh Das Manikpur, has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (crl) No. 16293/2025 on the ground of detention period in jail. He submits that the case of the present applicant is identical to the case of the aforesaid co-accused person, the applicant is in jail since 28.11.2024, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 5. It is further argued that the second bail application of the co-accused, namely Santosh Das Manikpuri, was rejected by this Court on merits in MCRC No. 3131 of 2025 vide order dated 24.04.2025. Thereafter, he preferred an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No. 3 16293/2025, which was subsequently allowed. He further pointed out that the name of the concerned police station was wrongly mentioned as “Navagarh” instead of “Champa”, which error was subsequently taken note of by the concerned trial Court vide order dated 03.12.2025, and the same has already been rectified. 6. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, as the the co-accused person, namely, Santosh Das Manikpur, 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 detention period in jail, and the present applicant has been languishing in jail since 28.11.2024, the case of the present applicant is identical to the case of the co-accused persons. Moreover, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court in the present case, 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. 9. Let the Second bail of the Applicant – Ishwar Das Mahant, involved in Crime No. 517/2024 registered at Police Station – Champa, District – Janjgir-Champa (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 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 4 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 sufÏcient 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 sufÏcient 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. 10. OfÏce 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 Abhishek