Grant of Bail on Grounds of Parity and Charge-Sheet Filing in Multi-FIR Financial Fraud Cases

The applicant, Aatma Ram Sahu, filed five first bail applications following his arrest in connection with five distinct Crime Numbers (378/2025, 470/2025, 433/2025, 430/2025, and 170/2025) across two police stations.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused persons induced various complainants to invest large sums of money—ranging from ₹22 lakhs to over ₹1.5 crores—into share trading under the false promise of doubling the investment within two years.

The complainants alleged the funds were either transferred to bank accounts of co-accused persons or handed over in cash, but were never returned.

The applicant has been in custody since September 2025, and a charge-sheet has already been filed.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the period of incarceration and the principle of parity with co-accused persons.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 [equivalent to Sec. 439 CrPC], which governs the High Court's power to grant regular bail.

The charges involved Sections 318(4) [Cheating], 316(5) [Criminal Breach of Trust], 318(3), 3(5) [Joint Liability], and 111 [Organized Crime] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court relied on the principle of parity in bail, as well as the consideration of the accused’s criminal antecedents and the stage of trial (completion of investigation/filing of charge-sheet).

The Court observed that while the allegations involved significant sums of money obtained under the pretext of doubling investments, the investigation was complete as the charge-sheet had been filed.

The Court noted that the applicant had been in jail since early September 2025 and that the trial would likely consume considerable time.

Crucially, the Court found that the co-accused persons in all five related crime cases had already been granted bail by the High Court between October and December 2025.

Although the State counsel opposed the bail citing the nature of the fraud, they could not dispute the fact that the applicant had no criminal history outside of these five interconnected cases, nor could they dispute the bail orders passed in favor of the co-accused.

The Court allowed the applications and directed that the applicant be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to strict conditions including: (i) no seeking of adjournments when witnesses are present; (ii) mandatory appearance at every hearing; and (iii) strict compliance with Sections 269 and 209 of the BNS regarding presence and non-appearance.