1 CGHC010299692026 2026:CGHC:37586 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7832 of 2026 1. Mrigendra Singh Baghel S/o Krishna Pratap Singh, Aged About 45 Years R/o Semarpakha, Post - Pondikala, Tehsil Jaisinghnagar, District - Shahdol (M.P.) 2. Ranvijay Singh Baghel S/o Krishna Pratap Singh Baghel, Aged About 58 Years R/o Semarpakha, Police Station - Beohari, District - Shahdol (M.P.) 3. Dhirendra Singh Baghel S/o Krisnha 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 - Khallari District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Shrikant Mishra, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.08.2026 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. 138/2017, registered at Police Station – Khallari, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.08.22 11:29:11 +0530 2 (Banning) Act, 1978, and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors' Interests Act, 2005. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Kuleshwar Sahu, lodged a written report at Police Station Khallari, District Mahasamund, alleging that the applicants, along with the other co-accused, were Directors of Sai Prakash Properties Company, which had floated various investment schemes promising exorbitant returns to the general public. It is alleged that, by publishing advertisements and making false representations, the accused persons induced the complainant and numerous other investors to deposit their hard-earned money with the company on the assurance that the deposited amount would be doubled or tripled, along with attractive interest, upon completion of the stipulated period of six years. Believing the assurances given by the accused persons, the complainant and several other investors deposited substantial amounts with the company under different investment schemes. However, upon expiry of the maturity period, the company allegedly failed to return either the principal amount or the promised returns. Instead, the Directors of the company allegedly closed its offices and absconded without repaying the investors, thereby dishonestly misappropriating the deposited amounts, causing wrongful loss to the investors and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No. 138/2017 was registered at Police Station Khallari, District Mahasamund, for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors' Interests Act, 2005, and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. 3 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 8 criminal cases and the applicant No.3 has 4 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. Further, in Crime No. 483/2017, the present applicant has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.08.2026 passed in MCRC No. 7741/2026. The applicant No.1 is in jail since 24.01.2022, applicant No.2 is in jail since 26.07.2023 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 8 criminal cases and the applicant No.3 has 4 criminal cases, and the charge-sheet has been filed in this case, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the fact that the co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He also could not dispute that the present applicant has already been granted bail in another crime case by this Court vide order dated 20.08.2026 passed in MCRC No. 7741/2026. 4 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 8 criminal cases and the applicant No.3 has 4 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, further, in Crime No. 483/2017, the present applicant has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.08.2026 passed in MCRC No. 7741/2026 and the applicant No.1 is in jail since 24.01.2022, applicant No.2 is in jail since 26.07.2023 and applicant No.3 is in jail since 05.09.2022 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. 7. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed. Let applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 – Mrigendra Singh Baghel, Ranvijay Singh Baghel, and Dhirendra Singh Baghel, respectively involved in Crime No. 138/2017, registered at Police Station – Khallari, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 34 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 Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors' Interests 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 5 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 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 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 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 them 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 Preeti