1 CGHC010290482026 2026:CGHC:37398 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7741 of 2026 1 - Mrigendra Singh Baghel S/o Krishna Pratap Singh Baghel Aged About 45 Years R/o Semarpakha, Post- Pondikala, Tehsil- Jaisnghnagar, District- Shahdol, M.P. 2 - Ranvijay Singh Baghel S/o Krishan Pratap Singh Baghel Aged About 58 Years R/o Semarpakha, Police Station- Beohari, District- Shahdol, M.P. 3 - Dhirendra Singh Baghel S/o Krishna Pratap Singh Baghel Aged About 60 Years R/o Semarpakha, Police Station- Beohari, District- Shahdol, M.P. ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Pulgaon, District – Durg, C.G. ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shrikant Mishra, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 20.08.2026 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 483/2017, registered at Police Station – Pulgaon, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and Section 10 of the PDI Act, 2005. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that the complainant, namely Tejram Gautam, lodged a written report alleging that Sai Prakash Properties RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Development Limited, which operates across the State of Chhattisgarh and has its corporate offices at Sansarchandra Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) and Jail Road, Bhopal (M.P.), had cheated him. It is alleged that one Chaman Verma, who was working as an agent of the said company and was known to the complainant, induced him to purchase seven policies in his and his wife's name, assuring that on maturity he would receive nearly three times the invested Amount. However, after the maturity period expired, neither any amount was paid nor any information was provided by the company. It is further alleged that the said agent, in collusion with the directors of the company, deceived the complainant. Based on the report, FIR was registered on 26.10.2017 against the directors of Sai Prakash Properties Development Limited and the agent Chaman Verma. Hence, this application. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that the applicants are wanted in other more cases of similar nature, the applicant No.1 has 4 criminal cases, applicant No.2 had 7 criminal cases and the applicant No.3 has 3 criminal cases. It is further submitted that the co-accused namely Pushpendra Singh Baghel has already been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 29.05.2026 passed in Writ Petition (Crl) No(s). 125 of 2026. It is further submitted that one of the co-accused namely Sandeep Shankar has also been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2025 passed in MCRC No.8863/2025. The applicant No.1 is in 3 jail since 26.01.2022, applicant No.2 is in jail since 14.07.2023 and applicant No.3 is in jail since 05.09.2022 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that applicants are wanted in other more cases of similar nature, the applicant No.1 has 4 criminal cases, applicant No.2 had 7 criminal cases and the applicant No.3 has 3 criminal cases, and the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail, but she could not dispute the fact that the co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicants and the fact that the applicants are wanted in other more cases of similar nature, the applicant No.1 has 4 criminal cases, applicant No.2 had 7 criminal cases and the applicant No.3 has 3 criminal cases, the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, but the co-accused namely Pushpendra Singh Baghel has already been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 29.05.2026 passed in Writ Petition (Crl) No(s). 125 of 2026, and one of the co-accused namely Sandeep Shankar has also been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2025 passed in MCRC No.8863/2025, and the applicant No.1 is in jail since 26.01.2022, applicant No.2 is in jail since 14.07.2023 and applicant No.3 is in jail since 05.09.2022 and conclusion of the trial is 4 likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Let applicants – Mrigendra Singh Baghel, Ranvijay Singh Baghel, and Dhirendra Singh Baghel, involved in Crime No. 483/2017, registered at Police Station – Pulgaon, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and Section 10 of the PDI Act, 2005, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties each 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him 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 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 him, 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 5 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 him 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 Rajshekhar