Bail was granted to alleged jewellery-sale facilitators lacking a direct role in extortion.

The applicants sought their first bail in connection with Crime No. 1122/2026, registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, under Sections 308(5), 296, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS); Sections 317(4) BNS were additionally invoked against some applicants.

The prosecution alleged that the principal accused threatened the complainant’s granddaughter and obtained approximately Rs. 14.50 lakh and 450 grams of gold jewellery. During investigation, some applicants were alleged to have facilitated the sale of the jewellery, while recoveries were made from certain applicants.

The Court heard the applications together and considered the case diary and the parties’ submissions.

Whether Ayush Yadav and Adarsh Sharma should be released on bail, having regard to the seriousness and directness of the allegations, recoveries, and antecedents.

Whether Rajesh Soni @ Raju, Aditya Pandey, Akash Jha and Smt. Khushbu Bhudhiya should be released on bail, having regard to their alleged roles, the material against them, custody and progress of the investigation.

The applicants were charged under the specified provisions of the BNS.

The Court applied its discretion to assess bail by considering the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the role attributed to each applicant, recoveries, criminal antecedents, custody, progress of the investigation and the need for further custodial interrogation.

Although Khushbu Bhudhiya’s counsel invoked Section 43(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning her alleged arrest after sunset, the order did not determine that contention.

The Court distinguished the applicants according to their alleged roles. It found the allegations against Ayush Yadav and Adarsh Sharma more direct and serious: both were treated as principal accused, and articles or cash allegedly connected with the offence had been recovered from them. Ayush Yadav’s six criminal antecedents also weighed against bail; despite Adarsh Sharma having no antecedents, the Court considered the allegations, attributed role and recoveries sufficient to refuse relief at that stage.

By contrast, the remaining four applicants were alleged principally to have purchased or facilitated the sale of the jewellery; the Court noted the absence of allegations that they directly threatened or extorted the victim, and considered their individual recoveries or the lack thereof, their custody, and the substantial progress of the investigation. It concluded that they were no longer required for custodial interrogation and that the disputed transactions and seized articles could be examined at trial.

It allowed the applications of Rajesh Soni @ Raju, Aditya Pandey, Akash Jha and Smt. Khushbu Bhudhiya, directing their release upon execution of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with one surety for the like amount, subject to conditions against influencing witnesses or prejudicing the trial and requiring appearance on every trial date.