1 CGHC010201392026 2026:CGHC:34600 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5411 of 2026 Rekh Ram Alias Lekh Ram Kunjam S/o Nirup Ram Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 04, Kasawahi, Dhamtari, Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) --- Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Dondi- Lohara, District- Balod (C.G.) --- Non-Applicant MCRC No. 6870 of 2026 Rekh Ram Alias Lekh Ram Kunjam S/o Nirup Ram Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 04, Kasawahi, Dhamtari, Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ---Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) ...Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Jay Singh, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Deputy Advocate General. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.08.07 15:50:33 +0530 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.08.2026 1. Since the above-mentioned two bail applications arise out of same applicant, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.06.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 4688/2025 (in MCRC No. 6870/2026) and vide order dated 23.06.2025 passed in MCRC No. 4779/2025 (in MCRC No.5411/2026). 3. These are the second bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 612/2024 registered at Police Station – Balod, District - Balod (C.G.) (in MCRC No. 6870/2026) and Crime No. 186/2024 registered at Police Station – Dondi-Lohara, District - Balod (C.G.) (in MCRC No. 5411/2026) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the principal accused, Kholbahra Nishad, along with the co-accused, Sarita Kariyam, visited the house of the complainant, Veena Bai Goti, and induced her to form a group of 3–4 women for obtaining agricultural loans from various banks. It is alleged that after the loans were sanctioned, the principal accused invested 90% of the loan amount in a financial scheme and distributed the remaining 10% among the women members as commission. It is further alleged that the principal accused initially paid certain loan instalments. During the course of the investigation and on the basis of the memorandum statement of the principal accused, it was revealed that an 3 amount of Rs. 23,95,162/- was received by him between 17.09.2024 and 11.12.2024. It is alleged that the said amount was invested in a company run by his associates, namely, Rakesh Kumar Jangde and Devanand Sonwani. However, due to financial losses suffered in the said scheme, the principal accused failed to repay the loan instalments, following which the complainant lodged the present FIR against him and the other co- accused persons. During the investigation, it was found that the present applicant was working merely as an employee under the principal accused. It is further alleged that the applicant neither received any amount from the complainant nor derived any benefit from the alleged scheme. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 06.03.2025 and 11.03.2025 respectively. Learned counsel further submits that the applicants are entitled to the benefit of parity. It is contended that in Crime No. 186/2024, three co-accused have been granted bail by the trial Court, while two co-accused were enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 06.11.2025 and 08.12.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 8804/2025 and 10057/2025, respectively. Further, in Crime No. 612/2024, three co-accused have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 07.05.2026, 14.05.2026, and 17.06.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 4244/2026, 4554/2026, and 4998/2026, respectively. It is further submitted that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, the applicant pray for grant of regular bail on the ground 4 of parity. 6. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed but could not dispute the fact that similarly situated other co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, allegations levelled against the applicants and the fact that these are the second bail application of the applicant filed on the ground that the co-accused persons have been granted bail, in Crime No. 186/2024, three co-accused have been granted bail by the trial Court, while two co-accused were enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 06.11.2025 and 08.12.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 8804/2025 and 10057/2025, respectively, in Crime No. 612/2024, three co-accused have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 07.05.2026, 14.05.2026, and 17.06.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 4244/2026, 4554/2026, and 4998/2026, respectively, the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 06.03.2025 and 11.03.2025 respectively, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 9. Accordingly, the second bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Rekh Ram Alias Lekh Ram Kunjam involved in Crime No. 612/2024 registered at Police Station – Balod, District - Balod (C.G.) (in MCRC No. 6870/2026) and Crime No. 186/2024 registered at Police Station – Dondi-Lohara, District - Balod (C.G.) (in MCRC No. 5411/2026) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 61(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya 5 Nyaya Sanhita, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties 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 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 6 accordance with law. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti