Anticipatory bail granted to accused based on parity with co-accused in share market investment fraud case.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 378/2025 registered at P.S. Kasdol.

The complainant, Chhedilal Sahu, alleged that the main accused, Ramnarayan Sahu, and others induced him to invest ₹40,82,000 in the share market with a promise of doubling it within two years, but failed to return the money.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated, was himself a victim who had paid ₹12,00,000 to the main accused, and had previously filed a complaint against said accused.

The applicant further highlighted that a similarly situated co-accused, Dharanidhar Patel, had already been granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under the principle of parity with co-accused persons?

2. Whether the applicant’s custodial interrogation is necessary given the nature of the allegations and his claim of being a victim himself?

Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of anticipatory bail.

Sections 316(5) (Criminal breach of trust), 318(4) (Cheating), 318(3), 3(5) (Common intention), and 111 (Organized crime) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The doctrine of parity, which suggests that if a similarly situated co-accused has been granted relief, the same should be extended to the applicant unless distinct circumstances exist.

The Court evaluated the facts and circumstances, specifically noting the nature of the investment dispute and the material on record.

It observed that the applicant occupied a similar legal standing to co-accused Dharanidhar Patel, who had been granted anticipatory bail by the same High Court on April 9, 2026, in MCRCA No. 525 of 2026.

The Court took into account the applicant’s argument that he had received no money from the complainant and was acting as a farmer and businessman with no prior specific allegations against him.

Consequently, without commenting on the final merits of the prosecution's case, the Court found that the benefit of parity was applicable, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary at this stage.

It held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released upon executing a personal bond and one local surety, subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses, regular appearances before the trial court, and a prohibition against committing similar future offences.