Absconding status and flight risk justify denial of bail despite parity in financial fraud cases.

The applicant, a Director of Dhanlakshmi Infra and Agro Farming India Ltd, filed his first regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

The prosecution alleged that the complainant, Mukesh Atami, invested Rs. 1 lakh in the applicant’s company between 2013 and 2014 based on a promise of fourfold returns by January 2024

the company’s office in Jagdalpur closed before the maturity date, resulting in the cheating of the complainant

An FIR was registered in 2021, and although a co-accused was granted bail in 2023, the applicant remained absconding until his arrest on September 20, 2025

The charge-sheet was subsequently filed against him as an absconder

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of his role as a Director and his previous conduct as an absconder

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail

Sections 420 (read with Section 34) and 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) concerning cheating and criminal breach of trust

Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Price Chits and Money (Banning) Act, 1978, and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005, which regulate fraudulent investment schemes

The primary legal principle applied was that the conduct of the accused, specifically the risk of fleeing from justice, is a critical factor in bail adjudication

The court weighed the applicant’s plea for parity with the co-accused against the specific circumstances of his own conduct

While the applicant argued he had been in jail since September 2025 and that the trial would be prolonged, the Court noted that the applicant had been absconding since the registration of the case in 2021

The Court observed that because the applicant is a resident of New Delhi and had previously evaded the law, there existed a high likelihood that he would abscond again if released

the Court determined that the applicant's status as a Director and his history of absconding distinguished him from those previously granted bail, outweighing the argument for parity

The Court granted the trial court liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously

The application was dismissed at this stage