Facts
The applicant, an agent/director of Shrishti Ware Industries Ltd., was accused of inducing investors to deposit funds with the promise of doubling their money within five years, which the company subsequently failed to return
Source reference: para 2A case was registered in 2016 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC and Section 6(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000
Source reference: para 2The applicant remained absconding since 2016, through the dismissal of an anticipatory bail plea in 2020, and finally surrendered on September 4, 2025
Source reference: para 3, 6This is the second regular bail application; the first was withdrawn in February 2026
Source reference: para 1Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail on the ground of parity with co-accused persons who were granted conditional bail upon depositing alleged defalcated amounts
Source reference: para 3, 62. Whether the applicant’s long period of abscondence (2016–2025) disentitles him to discretionary relief under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Source reference: para 6, 7Law Applied
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (analogous to Section 439 CrPC) regarding regular bail.
Source reference: para 1, 2Sections 420 (Cheating), 467, 468, 471 (Forgery), and 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the IPC, alongside Section 6(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000, which protects the interests of depositors in financial establishments
Source reference: para 1, 2The principle that "parity" is not an absolute right if the conduct of the accused, specifically long-term abscondence, distinguishes their case from others
Source reference: para 6, 7Reasoning
The applicant argued for parity, noting that he was ready to deposit the ₹8,00,000 attributed to him and citing the bail granted to co-accused Santosh Kumar Rathore by the Supreme Court
Source reference: para 3The Court rejected the parity argument, observing that the applicant had been evading the law since 2016
Source reference: para 6The Court reasoned that the applicant's status as an absconder for nearly nine years distinguished his circumstances from those who were granted bail earlier in 2020
Source reference: para 6, 7The court found that the case diary contained sufficient prima facie material indicating the applicant’s active involvement in the fraudulent scheme
Source reference: para 7Holding
The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the applicant is not entitled to bail at this stage due to the gravity of the offence and his prolonged abscondence
The application for regular bail was dismissed
Source reference: para 8Original Court PDF
Ramdev RathorevsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in