1 2026:CGHC:1704 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 255 of 2026 Raju Singh S/o Harpal Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Emli Duggu Bypass Road, P.S- Kotwali, District Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Champa District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.01.2026 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. 4438 of 2025 vide order dated 13.06.2025. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.01.13 13:00:11 +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 office 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 13.06.2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 4438/2025. 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 co-accused, namely, Ishwar Das Mahant and Gopikishan Sarth have already been granted second bail by this Court passed in MCRC Nos. 10493/2025 and 10502/2025 vide order dated 05.01.2026, the case of the present applicant is identical to the case of the aforesaid co-accused person, further the applicant has four previous criminal antecedents, in which he is on bail, the applicant is in jail since 24.01.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 3 5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application of the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, as 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 co-accused persons, namely, Ishwar Das Mahant and Gopikishan Sarth have already been granted second bail by this Court passed in MCRC Nos. 10493/2025 and 10502/2025 vide order dated 05.01.2026, the present applicant has been languishing in jail since 24.01.2025, the case of the present applicant is identical to the case of the co-accused persons. Moreover, the applicant has four previous criminal antecedents, in which he is on bail, 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. 8. Let the Second bail of the Applicant – Raju Singh, 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 evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial 4 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. 9. 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 Preeti