1 2026:CGHC:11057 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2101 of 2026 Akhilesh Singh S/o Harpal Singh, Aged About 28 Years R/o Imliduggu Bypass Road, P.S.- Kotwali, District Korba (C.G.) --- Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh C.G. --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. 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. 283/2024 registered at Police Station – Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 420, 463, 467 and 34 of the IPC. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, namely Balkumari, submitted a written complaint before Police Station Dharamjaigarh alleging that she came into contact with the main accused Manju, who represented herself as a Branch Manager and introduced the complainant to the present applicant and other co-accused, stated to be Directors of a private company named Flora Max Company. It is alleged that the said company floated a scheme purportedly for women’s employment, under which each woman was required to invest a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. As the complainant was unable to deposit the amount herself, she mobilized several other women, and collectively they deposited Rs. 30,000/- each, pursuant to which an overall amount of Rs. 49,50,000/- was collected by the company from various depositors. The complainant has further alleged that when the female members sought withdrawal or refund of their invested amounts, the Directors of the company refused to return the same, thereby committing cheating and misappropriation. 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 approximately Rs. 100/- per 3 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), Gudiya Devi Rajput (MCRC No. 2647/2025) and Manju Chauhan (MCRC No. 8976/2024) have already been enlarged on bail by this Court on the ground of prolonged detention. The applicant has been in custody since 20.11.2024, i.e., for more than one year, and although there are as many as 115 witnesses cited by the prosecution, the trial has not yet been concluded. So far as crimnal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is contended that multiple FIRs have been lodged at different places on the same set of facts and the same have been explained in para 4A of the bail application. 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 4 case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that similarly placed co-accused, namely Raju Singh (M.Cr.C. No. 4440/2025), Gudiya Devi Rajput (MCRC No. 2647/2025) and Manju Chauhan (MCRC No. 8976/2024) have already been enlarged on bail by this Court on the ground of prolonged detention and further the present applicant has been in custody since 20.11.2024, 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. 283/2024 registered at Police Station – Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 420, 463, 467 and 34 of the IPC, 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 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 5 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. 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 Kunal