Anticipatory bail granted on parity with co-accused who secured relief from the Supreme Court.

The complainant, Karan Soni, alleged that he borrowed approximately ₹10,00,000 from co-accused Rohit Tomar for business purposes, providing bank cheques as security.

Although the loan was repaid, Rohit Tomar allegedly used threats and mental harassment to extort a total of ₹1,30,00,000 from the complainant.

On Tomar's instructions, funds were transferred into the bank accounts of his employee, Akash Mishra, and the present applicant, Vedprakash Sinha.

Consequently, FIR Crime No. 231/2025 was registered at Police Station Purani Basti for offenses under the BNS and the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937.

The applicant filed this first anticipatory bail application apprehending arrest after the filing of the charge sheet.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, particularly on the grounds of parity with a co-accused granted relief by the Supreme Court.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the directions for grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest.

The substantive offenses involved were Sections 308(2) (Extortion) and 111(1) (Organized Crime) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937.

Furthermore, the court relied on the principle of parity following the Supreme Court's order in Rohit Singh Tomar v. State of Chhattisgarh [SLP (Crl.) No. 20358/2025], which allowed the co-accused's plea.

The applicant’s counsel argued that the primary accused, Rohit Singh Tomar, had already been granted relief by the Supreme Court on February 20, 2026, in SLP (Crl.) No. 20358/2025.

The State counsel, while opposing the bail, did not dispute the fact that the Supreme Court had granted such relief to the co-accused.

Upon perusing the materials and the facts of the case—specifically that the applicant's involvement was linked to the instructions of the co-accused—the Court found that the circumstances warranted the extension of similar relief to the applicant.

It directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and one surety, subject to several conditions: (a) non-interference with witnesses; (b) cooperation with the trial; (c) mandatory appearance on all trial dates; (d) submission of verified Aadhaar details; and (e) a prohibition against committing similar future offenses.