1 2026:CGHC:16168 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3151 of 2026 Sheikh Suraj Baba S/o Sheikh Ali Khan, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ravlapotta, Mandapeta, East Godawari Andhra Pradesh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (S.H.O.) P.S. Gudhiyari District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.04.2026 1. This is the second bail application 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. 268/2025 registered at Police Station – Gudhiyari, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.04.09 13:26:51 +0530 2 Court vide order dated 08.10.2025 passed in MCRC No. 7524/2025. 3. As per the prosecution story, the prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Hemant Kumar Jain lodged a written complaint at Police Station Gudhiyari, District Raipur alleging that he had come across an advertisement on Google relating to investment opportunities through a company namely "BN Rathi Securities Limited", which purportedly promised high returns on investments in the share market. Being attracted by the representations made in the advertisement, the complainant contacted the mobile numbers mentioned therein and was subsequently added to a WhatsApp group by certain unknown persons who introduced themselves as representatives of the said company. It is further alleged that the said persons induced the complainant to invest money in the share market by assuring him of substantial profits. Acting such representations, the complainant upon allegedly transferred various amounts on different dates into certain bank accounts as instructed by the persons communicating with him through mobile calls and online messages. Subsequently, when the complainant contacted the actual office of "BN Rathi Securities Limited" at Hyderabad, he was informed that no such investment had been made with the company, whereupon the complainant realized that he had been cheated and thereafter lodged the present report before the police authorities. During the course of investigation, the police authorities traced certain bank accounts into which the complainant had transferred the alleged amounts. One of the bank accounts was found to be in the name of a firm styled as "Good Dream Enterprises", the KYC documents of which were in the name of the present applicant. On the basis of the said circumstance alone, the investigating agency implicated the present applicant in the alleged offence. 3 4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that this is the second bail application of the applicant. It is further submitted that no incriminating article, amount of instrument alleged to be connected with the offence has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and there is no material to demonstrate that the applicant has personally derived any benefit from the alleged fraudulent transactions. Further, the co-accused persons, namely, Nagendra Kumar who are similarly situated with respect to the allegations and the nature of the offence, has been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 3611/2026, vide order dated 09.03.2026, a copy of which is filed herewith as Annexure A/4, and one of the co-accused person, namely, Priyank Jitendra Kumar Brahmbhatt has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 02.04.2026 passed in MCRC No. 2989/2026. The principle of parity in bail is a well-established legal position, whereby similarly placed accused persons should ordinarily be treated alike, unless there exists a material distinction justifying differential treatment. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is willing to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail, including furnishing personal bonds, sureties, or any other conditions deemed necessary to secure his attendance during the trial. As such, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity with the co-accused and should be granted bail pending investigation/trial. He further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 09.06.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application 4 of the applicant but could not dispute the fact that the co-accused persons have already been granted regular bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by this Court. 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, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents as well as the fact that co-accused person, namely, Nagendra Kumar who are similarly situated with respect to the allegations and the nature of the offence, has been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 3611/2026, vide order dated 09.03.2026, a copy of which is filed herewith as Annexure A/4, and one of the co-accused person, namely, Priyank Jitendra Kumar Brahmbhatt has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 02.04.2026 passed in MCRC No. 2989/2026, as such the principle of parity in bail cannot be overlooked, the applicants are similarly situated with respect to the allegations and the nature of the offense. No material distinction has been brought to notice which would justify differential treatment in the matter of bail. The applicant has also undertaken to comply with all conditions that this Court may deem fit to impose to ensure his attendance during trial. In the said circumstance, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let applicant - Sheikh Suraj Baba, involved in Crime No. 268/2025 registered at Police Station – Gudhiyari, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond 5 with two local 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 BNS. (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 BNS. (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 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 him in accordance with law. 6 9. 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