1 2026:CGHC:21460 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3057 of 2026 Somendra Patil S/o Purushottam Patil Aged About 28 Years R/o Quarter No. 01/c, Road-11, Sector-06, Ward No. 46, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) (Address Incompletely Mentioned In The Cause Title Of The Impugned Order) (Details Of Other Co-Accused Persons Wrongly Mentioned In The Cause Title Of The Impugned Order) … Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Chowki - Smriti Nagar, Police Station - Supela, District- Durg (C.G.) Complaint Registered At Police Chowki - Smriti Nagar, But Fir Registered At Police Station Supela. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For State/ Non-applicant : Ms. Vaishali Mahilang, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.05.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.05.08 16:33:51 +0530 2 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.1137/2025, registered at Police Station: Supela District-Durg for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(2), 340(2), 61(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 10 of the C.G. Protection of Depositors Interests Act. (Section 318(4), 61(2) of BNS, 2023 as per FIR). 2. That, as per the prosecution case, the complainant Vishwanath Lakhan Mathur was allegedly induced by the agents of Unique Investment Solution and Nisha Business Consultant Pvt. Ltd. to invest money on the assurance of earning monthly returns of 15-20% through share trading activities. It is alleged that initially the complainant invested an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and thereafter invested a further sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- on the basis of a notarised agreement executed between the parties. Subsequently, the companies allegedly stopped making payments to the complainant, whereupon it was discovered that the SEBI-related documents and assurances provided by the accused persons were fabricated and false. The prosecution further alleges that the directors of the said companies, along with the present applicant and other co-accused persons, acting in conspiracy, 3 cheated the complainant and several other investors of an amount totaling approximately Rs. 74,75,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that no material is available on record to demonstrate either any dishonest intention or any active involvement on his part in the alleged offence. It is submitted that the applicant is neither a director nor in any manner associated with the management of the companies concerned and no amount has ever been received by him from the complainant. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant as well as similarly situated co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 23.03.2026 passed in MCRC No.2684/2026 and dated 28.02.2026 passed in MCRC No.1112/2026, and therefore the present applicant is also entitled to the benefit of parity. It is further submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 05.01.2026, the charge-sheet has already been filed and none of the 167 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution have been examined till date. Learned counsel also submits that although one criminal antecedent is pending against the 4 applicant, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the applicant are grave in nature involving organized financial fraud and cheating of several investors on false assurances of high returns through share trading. It is submitted that the material collected during investigation prima facie establishes the involvement of the applicant in the alleged conspiracy along with other co-accused persons. Learned State counsel further submits that the benefit of parity cannot be claimed mechanically and the role of each accused is required to be considered independently. It is also submitted that one criminal antecedent is pending against the applicant and there is apprehension that if released on bail, he may influence witnesses or hamper the trial proceedings. Therefore, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the nature and gravity of the allegations, material 5 available on record and the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, this Court finds that the applicant is in judicial custody since 05.01.2026 and none of the 167 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution have been examined till date, therefore conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. It is also not in dispute that similarly situated co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 23.03.2026 passed in MCRC No.2684/2026 and dated 28.02.2026 passed in MCRC No.1112/2026, and the case of the present applicant appears to stand on similar footing, thereby entitling him to the benefit of parity. Though one criminal antecedent is pending against the applicant, there is no material available on record to indicate misuse of liberty by him in the present case. Therefore, considering the period of detention, filing of the charge-sheet and the principle of parity, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, I am inclined to allow the application. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Let applicant, Somendra Patil, involved in Crime No.1137/2025, registered at Police Station: Supela District-Durg for the offence punishable 6 under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(2), 340(2), 61(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 10 of the C.G. Protection of Depositors Interests Act. (Section 318(4), 61(2) of BNS, 2023 as per FIR), be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 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 them 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Section 209 7 of 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. 8. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Arpan