Regular bail granted on parity where similarly placed co-accused had already been released on bail.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 1363/2020 registered at City Kotwali Police Station, Raigarh, for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2005.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant invested approximately ₹40,00,000 in Sahara India Society after being induced by its branch manager and other officials through representations that the society was licensed and that the invested principal and interest would be repaid. The amount was allegedly deposited through 182 accounts, but was not returned.

The applicant claimed false implication, contending that he was only a Senior Regional Worker and was not posted within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned police station during the relevant period.

The applicant further relied on bail granted to co-accused persons in connected bail applications.

The State opposed bail but did not dispute the grant of bail to the co-accused or the filing of the charge-sheet after the applicant’s arrest.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

The alleged substantive offences were under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, concerning cheating and criminal conspiracy, and Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2005, concerning offences affecting depositors.

In exercising bail discretion, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the material in the case diary, the surrounding circumstances, and parity with similarly placed co-accused, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court also considered the Supreme Court’s order dated 29 March 2023 in WPC No. 191/2022, under which ₹5,000 crore was directed to be transferred from the Sahara-SEBI Refund Account to the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies for repayment to genuine Sahara depositors.

The Court noted that the applicant had been charge-sheeted after his arrest and that the State did not dispute the fact that co-accused in the same crime had already been granted bail. This supported the applicant’s plea for parity.

The Court also treated the Supreme Court-directed repayment mechanism, funded from the amount lying with SEBI, as a relevant contextual circumstance concerning the depositors’ claims.

Upon considering the nature of the allegations, the case-diary material, the documents filed with the application, the applicant’s submissions, and the absence of any disputed circumstance distinguishing him from the bailed co-accused, the Court found it appropriate to exercise its discretion in favour of bail.

The Court expressly clarified that it was not commenting on the merits of the case.

Bail was made subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses are present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The order was directed to be communicated to the concerned trial court for compliance.