A second bail application may be allowed on the ground of parity if a co-accused on a similar footing has been granted bail by a higher court, even if the applicant's first bail application was rejected on merits.

Order on Board

1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 4/2024, registered at Police Station Cyber Cell Headquarter, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of IPC.

2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 1894/2026 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.02.2026, on merits. Hence, the bail application.

3. As per the prosecution case, the complainant, Vikas Lahoti, received a WhatsApp message on 27.04.2024 from a person named "Asana," who introduced herself as being associated with Naresh Rathi and induced him to invest in share trading by promising high returns. He was added to a WhatsApp group named Avendus Stock Market Outlook-B108, where multiple members were allegedly posting screenshots of profits and bank details. On their instructions, the complainant downloaded the "Asamtop" app through a provided link, created login credentials, and between 14.05.2024 to 11.06.2024 transferred a total amount of Rs.59,23,000/- from his Kotak Mahindra Bank and IDBI Bank accounts into various bank accounts as directed for share trading. When the complainant attempted to withdraw his alleged profits, he was informed that his funds had been invested in an IPO (Majeenda Life Care) and that additional payments were required to release the shares and profits. Despite further transferring Rs.21,00,000/- on 10th and 11th June out of fear of losing his investment, he was unable to withdraw any amount or sell the shares. Alleging that he had been cheated of Rs.59,23,000/- by inducement and false promises of trading profits, Crime No. 04/2024 was registered at Cyber Police Station Range, Raipur under Sections 420 and 34 IPC. During investigation, it was revealed that the bank account of accused Pradeep Kumar Jain was used in the fraudulent transactions, and he admitted to having handed over his bank account, ATM, and SIM to other persons for monetary consideration. Hence, the bail application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court. The new ground for filing the present second bail application is that the co-accused, Pratap Patra, whose bail application had also earlier been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 10164/2025 vide order dated 05.02.2026, thereafter preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, registered as Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5893/2026, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 10.04.2026, was pleased to enlarge the said co-accused on bail. It is further submitted that the case of the present applicant is similar to that of the aforesaid co-accused and stands on the same footing; therefore, the present applicant may also be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the first bail application of the present applicant has already been rejected on merits by this Court in MCRC No. 1894/2026 vide order dated 24.02.2026. However, he could not dispute the fact that the co-accused has been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that the first bail application of the appl