Prolonged pre-trial incarceration and likely trial delay justified bail despite multiple similar criminal cases.

The applicants—Mrigendra Singh Baghel, Ranvijay Singh Baghel and Dhirendra Singh Baghel—were arrested in connection with Crime No. 138/2017 registered at Police Station Khallari, District Mahasamund, for offences under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interests Act, 2005.

The prosecution alleged that the applicants, as Directors of Sai Prakash Properties Company, induced the complainant and other investors to deposit money under investment schemes by promising that their deposits would be doubled or tripled with interest after six years.

After the maturity period, the company allegedly failed to repay the principal or promised returns, closed its offices and absconded, causing wrongful loss to the investors.

The applicants contended that they were falsely implicated, that the charge-sheet had been filed, and that the trial would take considerable time.

They had been in custody since 24 January 2022, 26 July 2023 and 5 September 2022, respectively.

It was also submitted that co-accused Pushpendra Singh Baghel had been granted bail by the Supreme Court and co-accused Sandeep Shankar had been granted bail by the High Court.

The State opposed bail, referring principally to the applicants’ criminal antecedents and their involvement in other similar cases, but did not dispute the grant of bail to the co-accused or in the other crime.

Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations, their criminal antecedents, and the filing of the charge-sheet?

Whether prolonged custody, the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial, and the grant of bail to similarly placed co-accused justified release on the principle of parity?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of regular bail by the High Court.

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC, concerning cheating and acts done in furtherance of common intention; Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, concerning prohibited prize chits and money circulation schemes; and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interests Act, 2005, concerning offences relating to protection of depositors’ interests.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicants’ period of custody, the probable duration of the trial, and parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and the applicants’ criminal antecedents—four cases against Applicant No. 1, eight against Applicant No. 2 and four against Applicant No. 3.

However, the charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the need for continued custodial detention for investigation.

The Court also noted that the applicants had remained in custody for substantial periods and that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Importantly, similarly situated co-accused had been granted bail by the Supreme Court and the High Court, and one of the present applicants had also obtained bail in another crime case.

Balancing the gravity of the allegations against these circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to extend the benefit of bail, subject to stringent conditions designed to secure the applicants’ presence and prevent obstruction of the trial.

The High Court directed that all three applicants be released in Crime No. 138/2017 upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The applicants were required, inter alia, not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on every fixed date either personally or through counsel, and to appear personally on dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of their statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The order further authorised the trial court to take action in accordance with law in the event of misuse of bail or deliberate non-appearance.