1 2026:CGHC:18672 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3709 of 2026 • Sukhdev Sahu S/o Ramjitan Sahu Aged About 22 Years (Wrongly Mention Ramjit Sahu In Impugned Order) R/o Kailashpur Police Station Ramanujganj Distt- Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Balrampur Distt- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.04.2026 1. This is the Second 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. 40/2025 registered at Police Station – Balrampur, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4), 61(2)(a), 338, 339, 340, 341 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 3982 of 2025 was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.04.23 19:20:41 +0530 2 13.08.2025. 3. The case of the prosecution is that,in short police registered the crime on dated 16.04.2025 it is alleged in FIR that, on direction of high authorities the police investigation about mule account, on investigation the found the co-accused Shoaib Ansari was having mule bank account and Rs. 8,22,146/- transaction reflected in said bank account, the police registered the crime against the Shoaib Ansari and unknown person. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent persons and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that the second bail application of the other co-accused persons, namely, Abhishek Jaiswal and Rajesh Sonkar have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2026 in MCRC No. 3251 of 2026 and 20.04.2026 in MCRC No.3567of 2026. Therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on regular bail on the ground of parity. 5. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and she could not dispute the fact that that the second bail application of the other co-accused persons, namely, Abhishek Jaiswal and Rajesh Sonkar have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 10.04.2026 in MCRC No. 3251 of 2026 and 20.04.2026 in MCRC No.3567of 2026. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that the second bail application of the that the second bail application of the other co-accused persons, namely, Abhishek 3 Jaiswal and Rajesh Sonkar have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2026 in MCRC No. 3251 of 2026 and 20.04.2026 in MCRC No.3567of 2026. Also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court and the applicant has been in jail since 23.04.2025 and conclusion of the trial may takes some more time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 8. Let the Second Bail of the Applicant – Sukhdev Sahu, involved in Crime No.40/2025 registered at Police Station – Balrampur, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4), 61(2)(a), 338, 339, 340, 341 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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, 4 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 accordance with law. 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 Vaishali