1 CGHC010195582026 2026:CGHC:28523 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4744 of 2026 1 - Tuleshwar Prasad Sahu S/o Late Badriprasad Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Mahkam Chowki And Tahsil Sonakhan P.S. Kasdol District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Hemant Sahu S/o Late Badri Prasad Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Mahkam Chowki And Tahsil Sonakhan P.S. Kasdol District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) --Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station Gidhouri District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) Respondent(s) MCRC No. 4843 of 2026 1 - Devnarayan Sahu S/o Late Badri Prasad Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Mahkam Chowki And Tahsil Sonakhan, P. S. Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Anil Shankar Sahu S/o Dwarika Prasad Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Lacchanpur, P. S. Janjgir, District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) Applicant(s) Versus RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.07.10 17:51:48 +0530 2 State Of Chhattisgarh Through, S. H. O. Police Station Gidhouri District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) (Details Correct As Per F. I. R. - A/3) Respondent(s) MCRC No. 4745 of 2026 1 - Ramnarayan Sahu S/o Late Badri Prasad Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Mahkam And Tehsil Sonakhan Ps Kasdol District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Gulshan Kumar Sahu S/o Ramnarayan Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Mahakam Chowki And Tehsil - Sonakhan Ps Kasdol District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ---Applicant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Gidhouri District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Kamlesh Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sourabh Pande, Addl. Advocate General For Complainant : Mr. Ravikar Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09/07/2026 1. Since all the bail applications arise out of the same crime number i.e. Crime No. 170/2025, they are being considered together and are being decided by this common order. Out of these bail applications, applicants Ramnarayan Sahu and Gulshan Kumar Sahu (MCRC No. 4745/2026) 3 have preferred their first bail applications, whereas applicants Tuleshwar Prasad Sahu and Hemant Sahu (MCRC No. 4744/2026) and applicants Dev Narayan Sahu and Anil Shankar Sahu (MCRC No. 4843/2026) have preferred their second bail applications. 2. The first bail applications of applicants Ramnarayan Sahu and Gulshan Kumar Sahu have been filed before this Court for the first time. So far as applicants Tuleshwar Prasad Sahu and Hemant Sahu are concerned, their first bail applications have already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 09/12/2025 passed in MCRC No. 9966/2025 on merits. Similarly, the first bail application of applicants Dev Narayan Sahu and Anil Shankar Sahu has also been rejected by this Court vide order dated 09/12/2025 passed in MCRC No. 8595/2025 on merits. Thereafter, the present second bail applications have been preferred by the said applicants. At this juncture, it is mention here that while rejecting the first bail application of these applicants, three female co-accused Janki Sahu, Anita Devi Sahu and Ku. Kusum Rani Sahu have been released on bail. It is also relevant to mention that co-accused Rupesh Kumar Sahu preferred his second bail application bearing MCRC No. 4293/2026, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 08/05/2026, and he has been enlarged on bail. 3. These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicants, who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 170/2025 registered at Police Station Gidhori Tundra, District – Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offences punishable 4 under Sections 318(4), 3(5) & 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). 4. As per the case of the prosecution, in brief, the complainant namely Deepak Kumar Unsenia, resident of village/post Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bhatgaon, District-Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.), submitted a written complaint alleging that accused Ramnarayan Sahu, through his associate Atmaram Sahu, induced him and his family members to invest money by representing that the invested amount would be doubled/tripled through share market schemes. It is alleged that, believing such representation, the complainant and his family members invested a total amount of Rs.1,58,45,000/- with accused Ramnarayan Sahu. It is further alleged that the complainant's friend namely Vijay Kumar Sharma, through the intervention of Atmaram Sahu, was also introduced to accused Ramnarayan Sahu, who allegedly induced him and his family members/relatives to invest money on the assurance of substantial returns through share market investment schemes. Pursuant thereto, an amount of Rs.93,10,000/- is alleged to have been invested by Vijay Kumar Sharma and his family members/relatives. Thus, a total amount of Rs.2,51,55,000/- is alleged to have been received from the complainant and Vijay Kumar Sharma and their family members/ relatives on the false promise of doubling/tripling the invested amount. It is further alleged that during the course of such transactions, certain amounts were transferred through bank accounts of the accused persons and their associates, including Tuleshwar Prasad Sahu, Gulshan Kumar Sahu, Dev Narayan Sahu and other persons connected with accused 5 Ramnarayan Sahu. It is alleged that despite receiving the aforesaid amounts, the accused persons failed to return the invested money and thereby cheated the complainant and other investors. On the basis of the written complaint submitted by the complainant, FIR has been registered at Police Station Giroudpuri, District-Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. (a) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicants were not named in the FIR and no specific overt act or role has been attributed to them in the entire prosecution story. The implication of the applicants is based only on suspicion arising out of their alleged association with other co-accused persons. (b) Learned counsel further submits that a perusal of the prosecution case would reveal that the principal allegations of inducement, misrepresentation and assurance of doubling/tripling of the invested amount through share market schemes are specifically attributed to co- accused persons, namely Ramnarayan Sahu, Gulshan Sahu and other co- accused persons. It is submitted that the present applicants have not been assigned any specific role in relation to the alleged inducement of the complainant or the investors. (c) Learned counsel submits that there is no allegation in the FIR or the material collected during investigation to show that the present applicants had induced the complainant or other investors to part with their money. It is submitted that inducement coupled with dishonest 6 intention at the inception is an essential ingredient for constituting the alleged offence, which is absent against the present applicants. The applicants have been implicated mainly on the basis of memorandum statements/statements of co-accused persons recorded during investigation, which, in absence of any independent corroboration, cannot be made the sole basis for their continued incarceration. (d) Learned counsel further submits that several co-accused persons in the present case have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. It is submitted that co-accused persons namely Sampat Kumar Sahu (MCRCA No. 226/2026, order dated 27/02/2026), Chandraprakash (MCRC No. 1980/2026, order dated 13/03/2026), Tulsinand Sahu (MCRCA No. 415/2026, order dated 18/03/2026), Rajkumar Sahu (MCRCA No. 433/2026, order dated 23/03/2026), Dharnidhar Patel (MCRCA No. 511/2026, order dated 08/04/2026), Diwakar Avsariya (MCRC No. 3799/2026, order dated 27/04/2026), Rupesh Kumar Sahu (MCRC No. 4293/2026, order dated 08/05/2026), Atmaram Sahu (MCRC No. 3356/2026, order dated 06/05/2026), Leeladhar Prasad Sahu (MCRC No. 3667/2026, order dated 06/05/2026), Anita Devi Sahu, Kumari Kusum Rani Sahu and Janki Sahu (MCRC No. 8595/2025, order dated 09/12/2025), and Shweta Avsariya (MCRC No. 10267/2025, order dated 12/12/2025) have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. It is submitted that the case of the present applicants stands on the same footing, rather on a better footing, than those co- accused persons who have already been granted the benefit of bail. Therefore, on the ground of parity also, the applicants are entitled to be 7 released on bail. (f) Learned counsel submits that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. The applicants are no longer required for custodial interrogation and the entire material sought to be relied upon by the prosecution has already been collected. It is submitted that continued detention of the applicants would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. (g) Learned counsel further submits that applicants Tuleshwar Prasad Sahu, Hemant Sahu, Ramnarayan Sahu and Gulshan Kumar Sahu are in judicial custody since 12/08/2025, whereas applicants Dev Narayan Sahu and Anil Shankar Sahu are in judicial custody since 01/09/2025. It is submitted that the applicants have undergone a substantial period of incarceration and continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment, which is impermissible in law. (h) Learned counsel submits that the applicants are permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title and have deep roots in society. There is no possibility of their absconding, tampering with prosecution evidence or influencing witnesses, if released on bail. The applicants are ready to furnish adequate sureties and undertake to abide by any condition imposed by this Court. (i) Lastly, learned counsel for the applicants submits that considering the absence of specific overt act, absence of direct evidence connecting the applicants with the alleged offence, completion of investigation, period of incarceration and parity with co-accused persons who have already 8 been enlarged on bail, the applicants deserve to be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the objector/complainant oppose the prayer for grant of bail and submit that the applicants are involved in a serious offence of cheating involving a substantial amount of money, wherein the complainant and other investors have allegedly been induced to part with huge amounts on the false promise of doubling/tripling their investment through share market schemes. It is contended that, during the course of investigation, sufficient material has been collected showing the involvement of the applicants in the alleged offence and their names have surfaced during investigation, including in the statements/memorandum of co-accused persons and the transactions reflected in the bank accounts. It is further submitted that some of the applicants have criminal antecedents, which reflect their conduct, and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the applicants are not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Learned State counsel further submits that there is a possibility that, if released on bail, the applicants may tamper with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses. It is also submitted that merely because some co-accused persons have been granted bail, the applicants cannot claim parity, as their individual roles, involvement and antecedents are required to be considered separately. However, learned State counsel could not dispute the fact that several co-accused persons involved in the present crime have already been granted bail by this Court. Hence, the bail applications deserve to be rejected. 9 7. Learned counsel appearing for the objector/complainant further submits that the applicants, in connivance with other co-accused persons, have cheated the complainant and other investors of a substantial amount of Rs.2,51,55,000/- by inducing them to invest money on the false promise of providing substantial returns through share market schemes. It is submitted that considering the nature of allegations and the manner in which the offence has been committed, there is a possibility of the applicants fleeing from justice and influencing the witnesses, if released on bail. 8. In response to the apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the objector regarding the possibility of the applicants fleeing from outside the country, this Court specifically enquired from learned counsel for the applicants as to whether the applicants possess passports. It was informed that applicants Tuleshwar Prasad Sahu, Hemant Sahu, Ramnarayan Sahu and Gulshan Kumar Sahu are permanent residents of District-Balodabazar-Bhatapara, whereas applicant Anil Shankar Sahu is a permanent resident of District-Janjgir-Champa, and none of the applicants possess any passport. 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 10. Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the case diary and the material available on record, this Court finds that the allegations against the applicants arise out of the allegation that they were associated with other co- accused persons in a scheme wherein the complainant and other 10 investors were allegedly induced to invest money on the assurance of doubling/tripling the invested amount through share market schemes. However, at this stage, there appears to be no specific allegation or direct evidence showing that the present applicants, except the principal accused against whom specific allegations are made, personally induced the complainant or other investors to part with their money. The implication of some of the applicants appears to be based on the alleged transactions reflected in their bank accounts and the statements of co- accused persons. It is also apparent from the material available on record that the investigation has already been completed and charge- sheet has been filed. The applicants are in custody and no further custodial interrogation is required. The prosecution case is based upon documentary and oral evidence, which has already been collected during investigation. Therefore, keeping the applicants in further custody would not serve any useful purpose, particularly when the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. 11. So far as applicants Tuleshwar Prasad Sahu, Hemant Sahu, Dev Narayan Sahu and Anil Shankar Sahu are concerned, although their earlier bail applications were rejected, this Court finds that there is a change in circumstances, inasmuch as subsequently several co-accused persons, including similarly placed accused persons, have been granted bail by this Court. It is also noteworthy to mention here that several co-accused persons, including Rupesh Kumar Sahu, have been enlarged on bail by this Court in their respective bail applications. The principle of parity, coupled with the period of incarceration and completion of 11 investigation, requires consideration of their subsequent bail applications. It is also relevant to note that applicants Tuleshwar Prasad Sahu and Hemant Sahu are in judicial custody since 12/08/2025, whereas applicants Dev Narayan Sahu and Anil Shankar Sahu are in judicial custody since 01/09/2025. This Court has also taken note of the fact that applicant Ramnarayan Sahu and applicant Gulshan Kumar Sahu are also in judicial custody since 12/08/2025. Considering the substantial period of incarceration undergone by the applicants, coupled with completion of investigation and filing of charge-sheet, this Court finds that the bail applications require consideration. 12. The apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the objector regarding the possibility of the applicants fleeing from country also does not appear to be substantiated at this stage, particularly in view of the submission made on behalf of the applicants that they are permanent residents of the Balodabazaar-Bhatapara and Janjgir-Champa and none of them possess passports. Appropriate conditions can be imposed to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, absence of any specific overt act attributed to the applicants completion of investigation, filing of charge-sheet, period of custody, subsequent grant of bail to co-accused persons and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on bail. 14. Accordingly, all the bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are allowed. 12 15. Let the applicants, namely Ramnarayan Sahu and Gulshan Kumar Sahu (MCRC No. 4745/2026), Tuleshwar Prasad Sahu and Hemant Sahu (MCRC No. 4744/2026), and Dev Narayan Sahu and Anil Shankar Sahu (MCRC No. 4843/2026), involved in Crime No. 170/2025 registered at Police Station Gidhori Tundra, District – Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) & 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’), be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present before the 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 appropriate orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against them in accordance with law. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and, in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is issued and they fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against them in accordance with law. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, 13 (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. If, in the opinion of the Trial Court, absence of any of the applicants 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 them in accordance with law. (v) The applicants shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall not cause any delay in the conclusion of the trial. 16. 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 Rahul