Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 16692
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ
BHUNESHWAR SAHU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
MCRCA No. 690 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Om P. Sahu
For the Respondents: Sourabh Kumar Pandey
Anticipatory bail may be granted on the principle of parity when co-accused in similar circumstances have been released and the investigation is complete (charge-sheet filed), especially in disputes arising from financial transactions.
Headnote:The applicant sought anticipatory bail under S. 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for offences punishable under S. 318(4), 316(5), 318(3), 3(5), and 111 of the BNS. The prosecution alleged that the complainant was induced to invest Rs. 39,10,000/- in share trading with an assurance that the amount would be doubled, which the accused failed to return. The court observed that the dispute essentially arises out of financial transactions between the parties. The primary issue was whether the applicant is entitled to bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused persons. The court reasoned that since several co-accused persons in the same case had already been granted bail and the investigation was complete with the charge-sheet filed, custodial interrogation was not required, and the applicant stood on an identical footing. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of cheating and inducement regarding financial investments in share trading. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contention regarding the application of the principle of parity versus the gravity of the offence. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. grant of bail based on parity, completion of investigation, and the nature of the dispute as financial. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. conditional release of the applicant on bail. (Para 7) |
Order on Board
1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.433/2025 registered at Police Station – Kasdol District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318 (4), 316 (5), 318 (3), 3(5), 111 of BNS.
2. That, as per the prosecution story, it is alleged that on 25.08.2023, the complainant Chhedilal Sahu visited the house of the applicants to meet Ramnarayan Sahu and his son Gulshan Sahu. During the said meeting, the complainant was induced and allured by the applicants to invest money in share trading with an assurance that the invested amount would be doubled. Relying upon such inducement, the complainant initially invested an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- through RTGS and thereafter paid remaining amount in cash, thereby investing a total sum of Rs. 39,10,000/- with the assurance of doubling the same within a period of two years. However, the applicants failed to return the said amount despite repeated demands, thereby allegedly committing cheating with the complainant. Consequently, the present offence has been registered against the applicants.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the co-accused persons in the same case have already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court vide orders dated 01.04.2026 passed in MCRCA No. 452/2026, vide order dated 19.03.2026 in MCRCA No. 420/2026, vide order dated 02.02.2026 in MCRCA No. 159/2026, vider order dated 13.01.2026 in MCRCA No. 58/2026, and vide order dated 02.01.2025 in MCRCA No. 8987/2024. The case of the present applicant stands on identical footing with that of the co-accused persons, and therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of parity. The investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has already been filed, hence no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. Therefore, considering the parity and the stage of the case, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
4. Per, contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the benefit of parity cannot be claimed mechanically as the role of each accused is distinct and requires individual consideration. It is submitted that the allegations against the present applicant are serious in nature involving cheating of a substantial amount and inducement of investment on false assurances. Merely because charge-sheet has been filed does not dilute the gravity of the offence or entitle the applicant to bail as a matter of right. The possibility of misuse of liberty and affecting the trial proceedings cannot be ruled out at this stage. Hence, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the nature of allegations, material available on record and the fact that the complainant allegedly invested a substantial amount of Rs. 39,10,000/- on the inducement of the accused persons for doubling the same through share trading, it appears that the dispute essentially arises out of financial transactions between the parties. It is also not in dispute that the co-accused persons in the present case have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 01.04.2026 in MCRCA No. 452/2026, 19.03.
