LEELADHAR PRASAD SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

2026:CGHC:21238
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3365 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
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara
(C.G.)
--- Non-applicant
Along with
MCRC No. 3891 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
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh R/o Police Station- Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-
Bhatapara (C.G.)
--- Non-applicant
RAJSHEKHAR
SONI
Along with
MCRC No. 3534 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.)
Digitally
signed by
RAJSHEKHAR
SONI
--- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara
(C.G.)
--- Non-applicant
Along with
MCRC No. 3467 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

2
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Police Station Gidhori Tundra, District Balodabazar-
Bhatapara (C.G.)
---- Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate, assisted
by Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh K. Pande, Dy. Advocate General.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Order on Board
06.05.2026
1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of
regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime Nos.
470/2025, 433/2025, and 430/2025 registered at Police Station –
Kasdol, District – Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), for the offence
punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 318(3), 3(5) and 111 of
BNS, and Crime No. – 170/2025, registered at Police Station –
Gidhouri Tundra, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), for the
offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 111 and 3(5) of BNS.
2. The case of the prosecution in MCRC No.3365/2026 , is that a written
complaint was made by one Rameshwar Kumar Kashyap, inter-alia on
the allegation, that on 04.04.2024, when he met with Ramnarayan
Sahu and Devnarayan Sahu in Kasdol, they told him that both of them
were brothers working in share market trading. Bhuneshwar Sahu and
Ranu Dhruv also worked in share market trading. Upon this
assurance, complainant deposited Rs.2,00,000/- through net banking
into Devnarayan Sahu's HDFC bank account number 502002204883.
Ramnarayan Sahu then deposited Rs.10,00,000/- into Devnarayan's
bank account in six times as requested. Total amounting to Rs.

3
22,00,000/-. After giving the money, he did not return it despite
repeated requests for the money. Thereafter, the crime was registered
against the co-accused and the applicant also.
3. The case of the prosecution in MCRC No.3891/2026 , is that written
complaint was made by one Chedilal Sahu, inter-alia on the allegation,
that on 28.07.2023, Ramnarayan Sahu, Anita Sahu, Gulshan Sahu,
Shashi Kiran Sahu, claiming to have experience in share market and
trading, cheated him by taking a total of Rs. 39,10,000/- by pretending
to have the promise of doubling the amount in two years by investing
the money through the account in share market. On the said report, a
crime was registered under sections 420 and 34 of I.P.C. was
registered and taken into investigation. During the investigation
Tuleshwar Prasad Sahu admitted the crime. Memorandum statement
was taken from the accused Tuleshwar Prasad Sahu in front of
witnesses. In his statement, he has stated that he had taken Rs.
20,00,000/- from the Chedilal Sahu through RTGS. Thereafter, the
crime was registered against the co-accused and the applicant also.
4. The case of the prosecution in MCRC No.3534/2026 , is that written
complaint was made by one Rajkumar Yadu, inter-alia on the
allegation, that Ramnarayan Sahu, resident of village Mahakam, told
him about the share market plan and gave him information through
social media on which he assured to return the principal amount and
interest of 8 percent for twenty months, then on 24.08.2024,
complainant through his son Saurabh's bank account number
50200086772799, deposited a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- in account of the
Ramnarayan Sahu brother i.e. Devnarayan in HDFC Bank account

4
number 50200062204883, branch Kasdol. Sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- in
the HDFC bank account of Janaki Devi Sahu, wife of Devnarayan,
Bank account number 50200078503295 and on 24.08.2024 sum of
Rs. 37,50,000/- was given in cash. On 31.08.2024 again sum of Rs.
2,00,000/- was deposited from complainant's son Saurabh account in
HDFC Bank account no. 5020076503296 and Rs. 24,00,000/- was
given in cash. Total amounting to Rs. 81,00,000/- was given, but it has
been eight months since he is not returning the amount. After going to
accused house several times, he used to send it back saying he will
return in near future. Thereafter, the crime was registered against the
co-accused and the applicant also.
5. The case of the prosecution in MCRC No.3467/2026 , is that a written
complaint was made by one Deepak Kumar Dansena, inter-alia on the
allegation, that he had been acquainted with Ramnarayan Sahu for the
past two to three years through Atmaram Sahu, who is a worker of
Ramnarayan Sahu. Both Atmaram Sahu and his wife came to his
house and have been depositing money with Ramnarayan Sahu for
the past two years, earning profits. He assured them that Ramnarayan
was like God to them, and introduced them to Ramnarayan Sahu.
They promised to double or triple their money in a year through the
stock market and told him the plans for another 7 to 9 years. From
31.03.2023 to 20.09.2024, the complainant and his family, under their
influence, paid a total of Rs. 1,58,45,000/- to Ramnarayan Sahu,
Atmaram Sahu, and other accused. Similarly, the complainant's friend
Vijay Kumar Sharma was introduced to Ramnarayan Sahu through
Atmaram Sahu, who also lured him with a plan to triple his money in a

5
year and took a total of Rs. 93,10,000/- from Vijay Kumar Sharma and
his associates, the total amount deposited is amounting to Rs.
2,53,55,000/-. Thereafter, the crime was registered against the co-
accused and the applicant also.
6. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant
is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further
submitted that a total of 5 criminal cases have been registered against
the applicant, out of which in one case the applicant has been granted
bail by this Court vide order dated 28.04.2026 in MCRC
No.3864/2026, and for rest 4 cases the instant bail applications have
been filed, and except these cases, no other cases have been
registered against him. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet
has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that in Crime
No.470/2025, the co-accused has been granted bail by this Court vide
order dated 09.10.2025 in MCRC No.6996/2025, in Crime
No.170/2025, the co-accused has been granted bail by this Court vide
order dated 09.12.2025 in MCRC No.8595/2025, in Crime No.
430/2025, the co-accused has been granted bail by this Court vide
order dated 09.10.2025 in MCRC No.7004/2025, and in Crime
No.433/2025, the co-accused has been granted bail by this Court vide
order dated 09.12.2025 in MCRC No.9221/2025. The applicant is in
jail since 18.03.2026, respectively, and trial is likely to take quite long
time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail.
7. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail
application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in this
case. It is further submitted that the applicant is said to have offered

6
the complainants to invest some amount in share trading and taken
money from the complainants on the pretext of doubling the amount,
and thereafter, no such amount was returned to the complainants, but
he could not dispute the fact that the co-accused person has been
granted bail by this Court in these cases.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the
documents available on record.
9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the
fact that a total of 5 criminal cases have been registered against the
applicant, out of which in one case the applicant has been granted bail
by this Court vide order dated 28.04.2026 in MCRC No.3864/2026,
and for rest 4 cases the instant bail applications have been filed, and
except these cases, no other cases have been registered against him,
charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant, further the fact that
in Crime No.470/2025, the co-accused has been granted bail by this
Court vide order dated 09.10.2025 in MCRC No.6996/2025, in Crime
No.170/2025, the co-accused has been granted bail by this Court vide
order dated 09.12.2025 in MCRC No.8595/2025, in Crime No.
430/2025, the co-accused has been granted bail by this Court vide
order dated 09.10.2025 in MCRC No.7004/2025, and in Crime
No.433/2025, the co-accused has been granted bail by this Court vide
order dated 09.12.2025 in MCRC No.9221/2025, and the applicant is
in jail since 18.03.2026, respectively, and conclusion of the trial is likely
to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application.
10. Let applicant, Leeladhar Prasad Sahu , involved in Crime Nos.

7
470/2025, 433/2025, and 430/2025 registered at Police Station –
Kasdol, District – Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), for the offence
punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 318(3), 3(5) and 111 of
BNS, and Crime No. – 170/2025, registered at Police Station –
Gidhouri Tundra, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), for the
offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 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 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

8
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.
11. 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
Rajshekhar