1 2026:CGHC:6583 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1271 of 2026 Yuvraj Adil S/o Late Shri Dhaniram Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Bakli, Police Station - Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House O0cer, Police Station - Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.02.2026 1. This is the First bail application 6led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 145/2025 registered at Police Station – Rajim, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) for the o<ences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2)(A) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 17.05.2025, the Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.), registered Crime No. 145/2025. It is alleged in the FIR that, on the basis of information ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.06 11:07:57 +0530 2 received from reliable sources and through the Coordination Portal operated by the Ministry of Home A<airs, Government of India, the police initiated an investigation regarding mule bank accounts. During the course of investigation, it was found that seven mule bank accounts were opened with the Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Rajim (C.G.), and transactions amounting to Rs. 4,16,96,238/- were re@ected in relation to the said crime against unknown persons. The allegation against the present applicant is that transactions amounting to Rs. 15,12,990/- were found in his Bank of Maharashtra account bearing No. 60491638398. It is alleged that, out of greed, he provided the said bank account to other persons and received dividends therefrom. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the co-accused, Mohnish Kumar Tandiya who is similarly situated with respect to the allegations and the nature of the o<ence, has been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 18750 of 2025, vide order dated 22.01.2026. The principle of parity in bail is a well-established legal position, whereby similarly placed accused persons should ordinarily be treated alike, unless there exists a material distinction justifying di<erential treatment. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is willing to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail, including furnishing personal bonds, sureties, or any other conditions deemed necessary to secure his attendance during the trial. As such, the applicant is entitled to the bene6t of parity with the co-accused and should be granted bail pending investigation/trial. He further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 18.05.2025 and the conclusion of the trial 3 is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant but could not dispute the fact that the co- accused person has already been granted regular bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the co-accused, Mohnish Kumar Tandiya who is similarly situated with respect to the allegations and the nature of the o<ence, has been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 18750 of 2025, vide order dated 22.01.2026, as such the principle of parity in bail cannot be overlooked, the applicant is similarly situated with respect to the allegations and the nature of the o<ence. No material distinction has been brought to notice which would justify di<erential treatment in the matter of bail. The applicant has also undertaken to comply with all conditions that this Court may deem 6t to impose to ensure his attendance during trial. In the said circumstance, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let applicant - Yuvraj Adil, involved in Crime No. 145/2025 registered at Police Station – Rajim, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) for the o<ences punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4), 61(2)(A) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a 4 personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 6le an undertaking to the e<ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 6xed 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 6xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su0cient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of BNS. (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 6xed in such proclamation, then, the trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of BNS. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial Court on the dates 6xed 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 are deliberate or without su0cient 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. 5 8. O0ce is directed to send a certi6ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinh) ChiefJustice Abhishek