Facts
The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 433/2025 involving alleged financial fraud
Source reference: para. 1The complainant alleged that the main accused individuals lured him into investing ₹39,10,000 with promises of extraordinary stock market returns
Source reference: para. 2The applicant was not named in the First Information Report (FIR) nor in the complainant's Section 180 statement; he was implicated solely based on a memorandum statement provided by co-accused Chandraprakash
Source reference: para. 2-3The applicant moved the High Court asserting false implication and seeking parity with other co-accused who had already been granted bail
Source reference: para. 3Issues
Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) based on the nature of the evidence and the principle of parity
Source reference: para. 5Law Applied
The Court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the grant of anticipatory bail
Source reference: para. 1The substantive charges involved Sections 318(4), 316(5), 318(3), 111, and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, relating to cheating and organized crime
Source reference: para. 1-2The court further applied the principle of judicial parity, noting that similarly situated co-accused had been granted relief under MCRC No. 1950/2026, MCRCA No. 58/2026, and MCRCA No. 159/2026
Source reference: para. 5Reasoning
The Court observed that the applicant’s implication rested exclusively on the memorandum statement of a co-accused rather than direct naming in the FIR or initial statements
Source reference: para. 2-3In evaluating the merits, the Court emphasized that three co-accused—Chandraprakash, Smt. Shashi Sahu, and Ranu Dhruw—had already been granted regular or anticipatory bail by the same Court in early 2026
Source reference: para. 5The Court reasoned that since the investigation and trial were likely to be protracted, and considering the specific facts and circumstances of the applicant's late inclusion in the case, the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail was warranted
Source reference: para. 5Holding
The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application
It held that the applicant should be released on bail in the event of arrest upon executing a personal bond and one surety, subject to conditions including: (a) non-interference with witnesses; (b) regular appearance before the trial court; (c) submission of verified Aadhaar details; and (d) a prohibition against committing similar future offences
Source reference: para. 6Original Court PDF
RAJKUMAR SAHUvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in