1 CGHC010283682026 2026:CGHC:32049 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6736 of 2026 1 - Dev Narayan Sahu S/o Late Badriprasad Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o - Mahkam Police Chowki Sonakhan Thana Kasdol District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. 2 - Hemant Sahu S/o Late Badriprasad Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o - Mahkam Police Chowki Sonakhan Thana Kasdol District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, C.G. 3 - Tuleshwar Prasad Sahu S/o Late Badriprasad Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o - Mahkam Police Chowki Sonakhan Thana Kasdol District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. 4 - Rupesh Sahu S/o Dwarika Prasad Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o - Mahkam Police Chowki Sonakhan Thana Kasdol District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, C.G. 5 - Anil Shankar Sahu S/o Shri Dwarika Prasad Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o - Lachanpur, Thana Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa, C.G. ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Kamlesh Patel, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.07.2026 1. This is the Second Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 been arrested in connection with Crime No. 430/2025, registered at Police Station- Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 318(3), 111 and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicants being MCRC No. 8316/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2025 on merits. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Rajkumar Yadu, was induced by the co-accused persons to invest money in a purported share-trading scheme on the assurance that the invested amount would be doubled within a period of two years. Acting on such representations, the complainant invested a total sum of ₹81,00,000/-, out of which ₹37,50,000/- and ₹24,00,000/- were paid in cash, while the remaining amount was transferred to the bank accounts of Devnarayan and Janki Sahu. It is alleged that despite the expiry of the stipulated period, neither the promised returns nor the principal amount was paid back to the complainant, thereby causing wrongful loss to him and constituting the offence of cheating. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered the case and commenced investigation, during which statements of the accused persons were recorded. In the course of investigation, the present applicants were also implicated in the alleged offence, arrayed as accused persons, and subsequently arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that this is the second bail application, earlier bail application of the applicants being 3 MCRC No. 8316/2025 was rejected by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 09.12.2025 on merits. He further submits that the applicants have been in jail since 25.06.2025 and has, therefore, undergone a substantial period of incarceration of nearly one year and 10 days by the time this bail application is being considered. He further submits that the present application is being filed on the basis of changed circumstances and on the ground of parity. It is submitted that the earlier bail applications preferred by the present applicants were rejected by this Hon’ble Court at a very initial stage of the proceedings, and the said orders of rejection were subsequently affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, after such rejection, substantial developments have taken place in the matter. In particular, this Hon’ble Court has been pleased to grant bail to several co-accused persons involved in the same crime, including co-accused Narayan Ram Sahu, whose first bail application was rejected by this Hon’ble Court in MCRC No. 8316/2025 and whose challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1122/2026 was also dismissed, nevertheless, upon change in circumstances, his second bail application in MCRC No. 5074/2026 was allowed by order dated 17.06.2026. It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Ranu Dhruw (MCRCA No. 220/2026, order dated 11.02.2026), Chandraprakash (MCRC No. 1818/2026, order dated 13.03.2026), Aatma Ram Sahu (MCRC No. 3492/2026, order dated 06.05.2026), Dharanidhar Patel (MCRCA No. 530/2026, order dated 10.04.2026), Sampat Kumar Sahu 4 (MCRCA No. 577/2026, order dated 06.05.2026), Leeladhar Prasad Sahu (MCRC No. 3534/2026, order dated 06.05.2026), Tulsinand Sahu (MCRCA No. 578/2026, order dated 06.05.2026), Bhuneshwar Sahu (MCRCA No. 757/2026, order dated 14.05.2026), Anita Devi Sahu, Kumari Kusum Rani Sahu and Janki Sahu (all in MCRC No. 7004/2025, order dated 09.10.2025), Shweta Avsariya (MCRC No. 9579/2025, order dated 09.12.2025), and Diwakar Avsariya (MCRC No. 10386/2025, order dated 13.03.2026) have already been enlarged on bail by this Hon’ble Court. It is contended that the case of the present applicants stands on the same footing, and therefore, on the ground of parity, the present applicants also deserve to be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicants and submits that charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory and regular bail by this Court and the case of the present applicants is identical to that of the co-accused persons. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that this is the applicants’ second bail application and that the earlier application, MCRC No. 8316/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2025 on merits, further considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 25.06.2025 and has thus 5 undergone a substantial period of incarceration of nearly one year and 10 days, further it is noteworthy that several co-accused persons involved in the same crime have subsequently been enlarged on bail by this Court, namely, Ranu Dhruw in MCRCA No. 220/2026 vide order dated 11.02.2026, Chandraprakash in MCRC No. 1818/2026 vide order dated 13.03.2026, Aatma Ram Sahu in MCRC No. 3492/2026 vide order dated 06.05.2026, Dharanidhar Patel in MCRCA No. 530/2026 vide order dated 10.04.2026, Sampat Kumar Sahu in MCRCA No. 577/2026 vide order dated 06.05.2026, Leeladhar Prasad Sahu in MCRC No. 3534/2026 vide order dated 06.05.2026, Tulsinand Sahu in MCRCA No. 578/2026 vide order dated 06.05.2026, Bhuneshwar Sahu in MCRCA No. 757/2026 vide order dated 14.05.2026, Anita Devi Sahu, Kumari Kusum Rani Sahu and Janki Sahu in MCRC No. 7004/2025 vide order dated 09.10.2025, Shweta Avsariya in MCRC No. 9579/2025 vide order dated 09.12.2025, and Diwakar Avsariya in MCRC No. 10386/2025 vide order dated 13.03.2026. Significantly, even co- accused Narayan Ram Sahu, whose first bail application was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 8316/2025 and whose challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1122/2026 was also dismissed, has subsequently been granted bail in his second bail application, i.e., MCRC No. 5074/2026, vide order dated 17.06.2026. In view of the aforesaid subsequent developments, the principle of parity, the substantial period of incarceration already undergone by the applicants, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court 6 is of the considered view that, on the ground of parity, the present applicants also deserve to be released on bail. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the Applicants – Dev Narayan Sahu, Hemant Sahu, Tuleshwar Prasad Sahu, Rupesh Sahu and Anil Shankar Sahu, involved in Crime No. 430/2025, registered at Police Station- Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 318(3), 111 and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with 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 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 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 under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued 7 and the applicants 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, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (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 BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are 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. 9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan