Regular bail granted on parity where applicants had lesser roles and evidence was documentary.

The applicants, Laxmichand Dewangan and Manohar Jatwar, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 137/2025 registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund, for offences under Sections 318(3), 318(4), 238, 61(2) and 317(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

The prosecution alleged that co-accused Sudarshan Sahu induced village women by representing that they would receive benefits under the Mahtari Vandan Yojana and free cookers, obtained their Aadhaar details and biometric impressions, and facilitated loans in the names of 138 women without their knowledge.

The loan amounts were allegedly withdrawn and distributed among the accused in connivance with bank employees.

Both applicants had been in custody since 1 July 2026, had no criminal antecedents, and the charge-sheet had not yet been filed.

The prosecution case was substantially based on documentary and electronic evidence.

Co-accused Sudarshan Sahu, against whom specific allegations were made, had already been granted bail by the High Court in MCRC No. 5070/2026 on 9 July 2026

Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, notwithstanding the seriousness of the alleged offences and the ongoing investigation

Whether the applicants were entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Sudarshan Sahu, who had already been enlarged on bail

Whether continued custodial detention was necessary when the applicants had no criminal antecedents and the prosecution evidence was primarily documentary and electronic

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 318(3), 318(4), 238, 61(2) and 317(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the stage of investigation, the period of custody, the possibility of requiring further custodial interrogation, the applicants’ criminal antecedents, and the character of the evidence.

It also applied the principle of parity, namely that an accused whose case is not graver than that of a co-accused already granted bail may ordinarily claim similar relief, subject to the facts of the individual case

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations but found relevant bail considerations in favour of both applicants.

They had remained in custody since 1 July 2026, the charge-sheet had not been filed, and the investigation principally concerned documentary and electronic evidence already in the possession of the investigating agency

Neither applicant had criminal antecedents.

Further, co-accused Sudarshan Sahu—against whom the FIR contained the principal allegations of inducing victims, obtaining biometric details and procuring loans—had already been granted bail.

The Court therefore considered the applicants’ cases to be on a better footing than that of the bailed co-accused and held that their continued detention was not necessary for the purposes of investigation.

The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits of the prosecution case

The High Court directed the release of Laxmichand Dewangan and Manohar Jatwar on furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court

Bail was subject to conditions requiring them not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, to comply with proceedings arising from any failure to appear, and to remain personally present on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of their statements under Section 351 of the BNSS

The order was passed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.