1 2026:CGHC:21688 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4340 of 2026 Basant Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Bhuvan Lal Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Telibandha, Maulipara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001. (Currently Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Economic Offences Wing (EOW)/Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Headquarter, Opposite Jai Jawan Petrol Pump, Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Dr. Saurabh Pande, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.05.2026 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. 19/2000 registered at Economic Offences Wing (EOW)/Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that the accused, while serving as Housing Supervisor in the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Housing Federation Ltd., Regional Office, Raipur, allegedly entered into a criminal PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.05.08 19:39:53 +0530 2 conspiracy with the then Chairman of Adhunik Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Mr. Thawardas Madhwani, to commit large-scale financial fraud and misappropriation of funds. It is alleged that during the period 1995–1998, the applicant facilitated the sanction of housing loans by the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Housing Federation Ltd. in favour of 186 members of Adhunik Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, amounting to approximately Rs.1.86 crore, ostensibly for the construction of houses. However, upon physical verification, no houses were found to exist at the declared construction sites. It is further alleged that most of the purported beneficiaries, in whose names the loans had been sanctioned, could not be traced at the addresses provided. The prosecution also alleges that false and fabricated documents, including utilisation certificates and stage-wise construction certificates, were prepared and used to justify the disbursement of the loan amounts. Accordingly, on the basis of a written complaint dated 03.10.1999 submitted by one Mr. Chatumal of Raipur, the present FIR came to be registered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. It is further submitted that the alleged incident pertains to the years 1995-1998 and the FIR came to be registered in the year 2000, whereas the arrest of the applicant has been effected only in the year 2026, i.e., after an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly 25-26 years, which strikes at the very root of the Prosecution's case and renders the arrest wholly arbitrary, unjustified and legally unsustainable. It is respectfully submitted that such extraordinary delay, in the absence of any cogent explanation from the prosecution, demonstrates that there was no immediate necessity or compelling circumstance warranting custodial interrogation of the 3 applicant at this belated stage. He also submits that the applicant respectfully submits that, upon a mere telephonic intimation and without any formal notice being issued, he promptly appeared before the Investigating Officer, thereby unequivocally demonstrating his bona fides and full cooperation with the investigation. It is further submitted that, subsequently, in an apparent attempt to regularize the procedural lapse, a notice requiring the applicant's appearance was issued on the very same day i.e. 17.03.2026 and a copy thereof was handed over to the applicant then and there. He later submits that after the applicant is a 65 years old senior citizen, and his continued incarceration would cause disproportionate hardship, both physically and mentally. Further, the fact that the main accused person A.E. Gaberial against whom the FIR was lodged, has died. He later submits that the co-accused, namely, Pradeep Kumar Neekhra has also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2026 passed in MCRC No. 3921/2026, further the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, and he has been in custody since 17.03.2026. Therefore, it is submitted that the present applicant is also entitled to be released on regular bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case but could not dispute the fact that the co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations and the material available on record, the fact that, the alleged incident pertains to the years 1995-1998 and the FIR came to be registered in the year 2000, and the main accused person A.E. Gaberial 4 against whom the FIR was lodged, has died, and also considering the fact that the co-accused, namely, Pradeep Kumar Neekhra has also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2026 passed in MCRC No. 3921/2026, further the applicant happens to be 65 years old person and has no previous criminal antecedents, and he has been in custody since 17.03.2026, therefore, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the Applicant – Basant Kumar Sahu, involved in Crime No. 19/2000 registered at Economic Offences Wing (EOW)/Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(1) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, be released on bail on his 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 she 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 court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, 5 the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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 her, 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 her 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 Preeti