1 2026:CGHC:19623 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3864 of 2026 Leeladhar Prasad Sahu S/o Ghasiram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 20, Behind Lies School, Maruti Vihar Colony, Police Station Champa, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate. For Non-Applicant(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28/04/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 378/2025 registered at Police Station Kasdol, District-Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 318(3), 111 and 3(5) of BNS. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, a written complaint was made by one Gopal Prasad Dewangan, inter alia alleging that on KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 25.08.2023, Ramnarayan Sahu and Gulshan Sahu, residents of Mahakam, came to the shop of the complainant and requested him to install a steel railing at their house. Accordingly, on the next day, the complainant went to their house and installed the railing. Thereafter, on 29.08.2023 at about 11:00 AM, the applicant went to the house of Ramnarayan Sahu in village Mahakam for the purpose of installing a steel railing and received payment for the said work. At that time, Ramnarayan Sahu, Gulshan Sahu, and Kusum Rani Sahu, who were present there, discussed with the complainant about doubling money through share market trading. It is further alleged that on 02.09.2023, by deceiving the complainant with the promise of doubling his money, they induced him to pay a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/- in cash to Gulshan Sahu, assuring that the amount would be doubled within two years. Subsequently, on 04.09.2023, Ramnarayan Sahu and Gulshan Sahu visited the complainant’s shop in a car and again assured him of doubling his investment through share market trading. The accused persons further induced the complainant to transfer money through cash, PhonePe, and IMPS to Gopal Prasad Sahu, as a result of which the total amount invested reached Rs. 19,43,000/-. Further, a friend of the complainant, namely Rajesh Kumar Dewangan, resident of Katgi, also transferred Rs. 5,50,000/- to the account of Gopal Sahu and paid Rs. 8,00,000/- in cash to Ramnarayan Sahu, Gulshan Sahu, and Tuleshwar Sahu. Additionally, Rs. 94,000/- was transferred online by Anil Kumar Prajapati to the account of Rupesh Kumar Sahu, resident of Mahakam. The complainant also paid Rs. 3 1,50,000/- in cash and Rs. 5,45,000/- online to Gopal Prasad Sahu, resident of Deradih. In this manner, Ramnarayan Sahu, Gulshan Sahu, Kusum Rani Sahu, Gopal Prasad Sahu, Rupesh Sahu, and Tuleshwar Sahu, in furtherance of their common intention, fraudulently induced the complainant and other persons to invest money on the false promise of doubling the amount within two years, thereby cheating them and dishonestly obtaining a total sum of Rs. 40,82,000/-. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, a case was registered against the accused persons under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC, vide Crime No. 378/2025, and the matter was taken up for investigation. During the course of investigation, statements of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded, and details of the bank accounts of the accused persons and the witnesses were obtained. Section 111 of the B.N.S. was subsequently added, as the accused persons were found to have fraudulently induced people to invest money by posing as traders and promising high returns in the share market. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that from a bare perusal of the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 invoked in the present case, as well as the FIR lodged by the prosecution, it is evident that there is no material on record to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences against the applicant. There is no evidence to show that the applicant was involved in any conspiracy with the co- accused or that he obtained any wrongful gain. No specific 4 allegation or overt act has been attributed to the applicant in the FIR, and the basic ingredients of Sections 318(4), 316(5), 318(3), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are entirely absent so far as the present applicant is concerned. It is further submitted that even from the memorandum statements of the co- accused persons, namely Atma Ram Sahu and Ramnarayan Sahu, the names of several other accused persons have been specifically mentioned, however, the name of the present applicant does not find place therein, which clearly demonstrates his false implication. There is no call detail record, call recording, bank transaction, electronic evidence or independent witness to establish any connection of the applicant with the alleged offence or to show that he received or facilitated any amount for investment in the share market. No recovery, seizure or monetary transaction has been made from or traced to the present applicant and not a single rupee of the alleged amount has been recovered from his possession or at his instance. The applicant has no relation with the co-accused persons and has neither mediated nor facilitated any transfer or investment of money as alleged. Even as per the prosecution story, all payments were made to other co-accused persons and not to the present applicant, thus, no offence under the aforesaid provisions is made out against him. It is further submitted that the applicant was not named in the FIR and his implication is an afterthought during the course of investigation without any direct or cogent evidence. The investigation is already complete and the charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, no custodial interrogation of the applicant is 5 required. The entire case is based on documentary and oral evidence already in possession of the prosecution and there is no likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Continued detention of the applicant would amount to pre-trial punishment and would be violative of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that the applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of memorandum statements of co-accused persons without any independent corroboration. Furthermore, several co-accused persons, namely Diwakar Avsariya (MCRC/2759/2026, order dated 24.03.2026), Chandraprakash (MCRC/1915/2026, order dated 13.03.2026), Shweta Avsariya (MCRC/9608/2025, order dated 09.12.2025), Anita Devi Sahu and Kumari Kusum Rani Sahu (MCRC/7007/2025, order dated 09.10.2025), as well as Ranu Dhruw (MCRCA/228/2026, anticipatory bail granted vide order dated 12.02.2026), have already been granted bail by this Court, and therefore, on the ground of parity also, the present applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Although first bail applications of some co-accused persons, namely Rupesh Kumar Sahu and Tuleshwar Prasad Sahu (MCRC/8631/2025) and Dev Narayan Sahu, Hemant Sahu and Ramnarayan Sahu (MCRC/9853/2025), were rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2025, the case of the present applicant stands on a better footing as no direct role or evidence is attributed to him. The applicant is in jail since 18.03.2026 and except the present case, there are four more cases of similar nature as the same has been explained in the bail 6 application of para No.4(A) and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicant is involved in a serious offence of cheating involving a substantial amount, committed in furtherance of a well-planned conspiracy with the co-accused persons. It is contended that during investigation, sufficient material has been collected indicating the involvement of the applicant and his name has also surfaced in the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons. It is further submitted that the applicant has criminal antecedents, which reflects his conduct and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, he is not entitled to be released on bail. It is also apprehended that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence or influence the witnesses, however, he could not dispute the fact that some of the co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court. Hence, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegations, the material available on record and further taking into account that the present applicant has not been named in the FIR and his implication appears to be based solely on the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons, which by itself requires corroboration, this Court also takes note of the fact 7 that several co-accused persons, namely Diwakar Avsariya (MCRC No. 2759/2026, vide order dated 24.03.2026), Chandraprakash (MCRC No. 1915/2026, vide order dated 13.03.2026), Shweta Avsariya (MCRC No. 9608/2025, vide order dated 09.12.2025), Anita Devi Sahu and Kusum Rani Sahu (MCRC No. 7007/2025, vide order dated 09.10.2025), as well as Ranu Dhruw (MCRCA No. 228/2026, vide order dated 12.02.2026), have already been granted bail by this Court, and therefore, on the ground of parity, the case of the present applicant deserves similar consideration. Further considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant, as explained in paragraph 4(A) of the bail application and without commenting on the merits of the case, as the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed and there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant- Leeladhar Prasad Sahu, involved in Crime No. 378/2025 registered at Police Station Kasdol, District-Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 318(3), 111 and 3(5) of BNS, be released on bail on his 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 8 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 accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Kunal