1 CGHC010198622026 2026:CGHC:28523 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4719 of 2026 Tuleshwar Prasad Sahu S/o Late Badriprasad Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Mahkam P.S. Kasdol Police Chowki Sonakhan District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G. --Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Kasdol District Balodabazar Bhatapara C.G. Respondent(s) MCRC No. 4769 of 2026 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.) --Applicant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kasdol District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) Respondent(s) MCRC No. 4724 of 2026 Gulshan Kumar Sahu S/o Ramnrayan Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Mahkam Chowki And Tehsil Sonakhan P.S. Kasdol, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) --Applicant(s) RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.07.10 17:51:48 +0530 2 Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kasdol, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (C.G.) Respondent(s) AND MCRC No. 4734 of 2026 1 -Dev Narayan Sahu S/o Late Badriprasad Sahu Aged About 42 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 State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Kasdol 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 28/04/2026 1. Since all the bail applications arise out of the same crime number i.e. Crime No. 378/2025, they are being considered together and are being decided by this common order. Out of these bail applications, applicants Gulshan Kumar Sahu (MCRC No. 4724/2026) and Ramnarayan Sahu 3 (MCRC No. 4769/2026) have preferred their first bail applications, whereas applicants Dev Narayan Sahu and Hemant Sahu (MCRC No. 4734/2026) and applicant Tuleshwar Prasad Sahu (MCRC No. 4719/2026) have preferred their second bail applications. 2. The first bail application of the applicants Dev Narayan Sahu and Hemant Sahu has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 09/12/2025 passed in MCRC No. 9853/2025 on merits. Similarly, the first bail application of applicant Tuleshwar Prasad Sahu and co-accused Rupesh Kumar Sahu has been rejected on 09/12/2025 in MCRC No. 8631/2025. Subsequently, the co-accused Rupesh Kumar Sahu preferred the Second Bail application bearing MCRC No. 4347/2026 wherein he has been released on bail on 08/05/2026. 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. 378/2025 registered at Police Station Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 318(3), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). 4. As per the case of the prosecution, in brief, the complainant namely Govind Prasad Devangan, resident of village Katgi, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, is running an aluminium and steel workshop. "It is alleged that accused Ramnarayan Sahu along with other co- accused persons approached the complainant and induced him to invest money in share trading by representing that the invested amount would 4 be doubled within a period of two years. Believing such representation, the complainant allegedly invested an amount of Rs. 19,43,000/- through cash and online transactions. It is further alleged that the complainant's friends namely Rajesh Kumar Devangan and Anil Kumar Prajapati were also induced by the accused persons on the same pretext and they allegedly invested amounts with the accused persons. It is alleged that applicant/accused Tuleshwar Prasad Sahu, Ramnarayan Sahu, Gulshan Sahu, Dev Narayan Sahu and Hemant Sahu, along with other co-accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, cheated the complainant and his friends by inducing them to part with a total amount of Rs. 40,82,000/- on the false promise of doubling the investment amount through share trading. On the basis of the written complaint submitted by the complainant, FIR has been registered at Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 318(3), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 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 none of the applicants were named in the FIR and there is no specific allegation, overt act or direct role attributed to them in the entire prosecution story. The allegations of inducement, false representation and assurance of doubling the invested amount through share trading are primarily attributed to accused persons Ramnarayan Sahu, Gulshan Sahu and Kusum Rani Sahu, and no material has been brought on record to show that the present applicants ever induced the 5 complainant or his friends to part with their money. (b) Learned counsel further submits that even if the prosecution case is taken on its face value, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out against the present applicants. There is no material to establish that the applicants were part of any conspiracy or had any dishonest intention at the inception of the alleged transaction. No amount of the alleged cheated money has been recovered from the applicants or traced to them. There is no bank transaction, electronic evidence, call detail record, call recording or any independent material available on record to establish their involvement in the alleged offence. The applicants have been implicated only on the basis of the statements/memorandum of co-accused persons, which, in the absence of any independent corroboration, cannot be treated as sufficient material for further incarceration of the applicants. (c) Learned counsel submits that so far as applicants Dev Narayan Sahu, Hemant Sahu and Tuleshwar Prasad Sahu are concerned, although their earlier bail applications were rejected by this Court, the present applications deserve consideration in view of the substantial change in circumstances after rejection of their earlier bail applications, particularly subsequent enlargement of similarly placed co-accused persons on bail by this Court.. After rejection of their earlier bail applications, several similarly placed co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by this Court, including Leeladhar Prasad Sahu (MCRC No. 3864/2026, order dated 28.04.2026), Sampat Kumar Sahu (MCRCA No. 599/2026, order dated 22.04.2026), Tulsinand Sahu (MCRCA No. 6 616/2026, order dated 24.04.2026), Anita Devi Sahu and Kumari Kusum Rani Sahu (MCRC No. 7007/2025, order dated 09.10.2025), and Shweta Avsariya (MCRC No. 9608/2025, order dated 09.12.2025). Thus, the applicants stand on the same footing, rather on a better footing, as compared to the co-accused persons who have already been granted the benefit of bail. (d) It is further submitted that the investigation is complete, charge- sheet has already been filed and the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution is already collected. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the applicants in further custody. The applicants have remained in judicial custody for a considerable period and the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future. Continued incarceration of the applicants would virtually amount to pre- trial punishment, which is impermissible in view of the settled principles governing grant of bail and the constitutional mandate under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that applicant Dev Narayan Sahu is a physically disabled person having 45% permanent disability, duly certified by the competent Medical Board, and his continued detention is causing serious hardship and affecting his medical condition. His case, therefore, deserves additional consideration on humanitarian and medical grounds. It is also submitted that the applicants are permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title and there is no possibility of their absconding, tampering with prosecution evidence or influencing witnesses. The applicants are ready to furnish adequate sureties and undertake to abide 7 by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. (e) Lastly, learned counsel for the applicants submits that even if certain criminal antecedents have been attributed to some of the applicants, the same arise out of similar allegations and, therefore, cannot be a ground for denial of bail in the present case, particularly when several co-accused persons involved in the same crime number have already been enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that, considering the changed circumstances, the principle of parity with the co-accused persons, absence of direct evidence connecting the applicants with the alleged offence, and completion of investigation, the applicants deserve to be released on bail. It is submitted that applicants namely Dev Narayan and Hemant Sahu (in MCRC No. 4734/2026), applicant Gulshan Kumar Sahu (in MCRC No. 4724/2026), and applicant Ramnarayan Sahu (in MCRC No. 4769/2026) are in jail since 25/06/2025, whereas applicant Tuleshwar Prasad Sahu (in MCRC No. 4719/2026) is in jail since 28/06/2025. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as objector/Complainant oppose the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicants are involved in a serious offence of cheating involving a substantial amount of money, which was committed in furtherance of a well-planned conspiracy with the co-accused persons. 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 the investigation, 8 including in the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons. 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 and antecedents are required to be considered. However, learned State counsel could not dispute the fact that some of the co-accused persons in the present crime have already been granted bail by this Court. Hence, the bail applications deserve to be rejected. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the objector/complainant further submit that the applicants, in connivance with other co-accused persons, have cheated the complainant and his friends of a substantial amount of Rs. 40,82,000/- and, considering the nature of allegations, 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 possibility of the applicants fleeing outside the country, this Court specifically enquired from learned counsel for the applicants as to whether the applicants possess passports. It was also informed that the applicants are permanent residents of Baloda-Bazar- Bhatapara and none of them possess any passport. 9 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 are primarily based upon the allegation that they, along with other co- accused persons, induced the complainant and his friends to invest money on the promise of doubling the amount through share trading. However, at this stage, there appears to be no specific allegation or direct evidence showing that the present applicants had personally induced the complainant or his friends to part with their money. 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 Dev Narayan Sahu, Hemant Sahu and Tuleshwar Prasad 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 the second bail application of 10 co-accused Rupesh Kumar Sahu has been allowed vide order dated 08/05/2026 passed in MCRC No. 4347/2026. On an earlier occasion, applicant Tuleshwar Kumar Sahu had filed his first bail application along with the said Rupesh Kumar Sahu. The principle of parity, coupled with the period of incarceration and completion of investigation, requires consideration of their subsequent bail applications. It is also relevant to note that applicant Dev Narayan Sahu and applicant Hemant Sahu are in judicial custody since 25/06/2025, whereas applicant Tuleshwar Prasad Sahu is in judicial custody since 28/06/2025. This Court has also taken note of the fact that applicant Dev Narayan Sahu is stated to be suffering from 45% permanent disability, duly certified by the competent Medical Board, which is an additional circumstance requiring consideration. 12. The apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the objector regarding the possibility of the applicants fleeing from justice also does not appear to be substantiated at this stage, particularly in view of the submission made on behalf of the applicants that none of the applicants possess passports. The applicants are permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title and 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 direct recovery or specific overt act attributed to the applicants, completion of investigation, 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 11 considered view that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on bail. 14. Accordingly, the bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are allowed. 15. Let the applicants, namely Gulshan Kumar Sahu (MCRC No. 4724/2026), Ramnarayan Sahu (MCRC No. 4769/2026), Dev Narayan Sahu and Hemant Sahu (MCRC No. 4734/2026), and Tuleshwar Prasad Sahu (MCRC No. 4719/2026), involved in Crime No. 378/2025 registered at Police Station Kasdol, District-Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 318(3), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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 12 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, (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 copy of this order to the Trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Rahul