1 2026:CGHC:11056 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1725 of 2026 Akhilesh Singh S/o - Harpal Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o- Emliduggu Bypass Road, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Korba, C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.03.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 517/2024 registered at Police Station – Champa, District – Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(2), 318(4), 111(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 6, 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.03.03 15:29:41 +0530 2 2. The prosecution’s case in brief, is that, the company's director namely Akhilesh Singh, through Fora Max Service Private Limited Company, in a planned manner, by luring people of Sakti and nearby villages with high profits and commission, made around 150 people deposit money at the rate of Rs. 30-40 thousand per person and by promising to give Rs. 2700 per month and commission, committed fraud 8,10,00,000/- and then absconded by closing the office of the said company. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that the allegations levelled against him are false, baseless, and malicious. It is contended that the applicant has no role in the alleged crime and that there is no material to substantiate the prosecution’s case. According to the prosecution, investors used to invest money in the company by selling its products and, in return, received monthly profits ranging from Rs. 2,700/- to Rs. 3,000/- or approximately Rs. 100/- per day; however, all investors had been regularly receiving their profits and no complaint was lodged earlier. It is submitted that the present report has been filed only after the investors were allegedly misled by some third person. The complainants themselves were running the society after registering it and were performing roles similar to that of directors, yet they lodged the report without any justifiable reason, despite not having been cheated by the applicant. It is further submitted that similarly placed co-accused persons, namely Raju Singh (M.Cr.C. No. 255/2026) and Ishwar Das Mahant (M.Cr.C. No. 10493/2025), have already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court, and another co- accused, Santosh Das Manikpuri (SLP (Crl) No. 16293/2025), has been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground of 3 prolonged detention; copies of the orders are annexed as Annexure A- 3. The applicant has been in custody since 24.01.2025 in the present case and the trial, involving 21 witnesses, has not yet concluded. It is also argued that the documents allegedly seized by the police describing the applicant as Director do not appear to be valid legal documents, as they do not bear the seal or signature of the concerned department. The applicant has no knowledge of the alleged offence, has never met or known the other co-accused persons, and no incriminating document has been seized from him. It is further submitted that no act attributable to the applicant falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. The applicant is a permanent resident of the stated address, there is no likelihood of his absconding, and he is ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant has four criminal antecedents, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and as the co-accused person, namely Santosh Das Manikpuri, has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 16293/2025 vide order dated 28.11.2025 on the ground of prolonged detention, and similarly placed co-accused persons, namely Raju Singh (M.Cr.C. No. 255/2026) and Ishwar Das Mahant (M.Cr.C. No. 10493/2025), have also been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court, 4 and considering that the present applicant has been in custody since 24.01.2025, the case of the present applicant appears to be identical to that of the aforesaid co-accused persons. Moreover, as the charge- sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. 7. Let the bail of the Applicant – Akhilesh Singh, involved in Crime No. 517/2024 registered at Police Station – Champa, District – Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(2), 318(4), 111(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 6, 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, be released on bail on furnishing 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 5 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 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 vaibhav