Chitranjan Kumar Singh vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that at this stage, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail. The allegations pertain to an organized inducement scheme involving repeated contacts and substantial financial transfers. The material collected during the investigation attributes a role to the applicant in facilitating these alleged transactions by introducing the complainant to the main accused. Therefore, the Court found that the applicant's alleged role cannot be completely excluded from consideration merely because the mobile numbers mentioned in the FIR are not registered in his name or because no direct monetary benefit is presently shown to have been received by him. The principle of parity with co-accused was also rejected, as it requires consideration of the specific role and material against each accused, and the applicant's case must be considered on its own facts. While the absence of direct monetary gain and prior acquittals are relevant, they do not, in the present case, outweigh the material indicating the applicant's alleged involvement in facilitating the transactions. The Court also noted that the applicant's criminal antecedents can be taken into consideration while exercising discretion for bail, though not as a conclusive factor. Considering the nature of the allegations, the manner of transactions, the collected material, and the applicant's criminal antecedents, the Court was not inclined to grant bail.

Facts

This is a third application for regular bail filed by Chitranjan Kumar Singh concerning Crime No. 633/2025, registered at Police Station Semariya, District Rewa, for offences under Sections 318(4) and 111 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The prosecution alleges that the complainant's wife was induced by several individuals, using various mobile numbers, to deposit money towards an LIC policy, with promises of significant returns. Subsequently, GST was also demanded. The applicant's first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn, and the second was dismissed on merit. The applicant claims no offence is made out against him, that his role was limited to introducing the complainant to the main accused, and that he derived no financial benefit. He also points to similarly situated co-accused being granted bail and the complainant not supporting the prosecution's case during trial.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations made against the applicant constitute an offence under Sections 318(4) and 111 of the BNS, 2023, considering his alleged limited role and lack of direct financial benefit? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused who have been granted bail? (Question of law and fact) 3. Whether the applicant's criminal antecedents, some of which have resulted in acquittal, are sufficient to deny bail? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant contends that no offence under Sections 318(4) and 111 of the BNS is made out, even if the prosecution story is accepted. He argues that his role was confined to introducing the complainant to the main accused, and he did not derive any monetary benefit. He asserts that similarly situated co-accused have been granted bail. The allegations against him are omnibus and based on a concocted story. He also submits that the complainant has not supported the prosecution case during trial, weakening the allegations. He relies on the Supreme Court's decision in Prabhakar Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh regarding criminal antecedents not being a sole ground for denial of bail. Revenue's Arguments: The State opposes the bail application, submitting that there is sufficient material connecting the applicant to the offence. They argue that the applicant's role in introducing the complainant to the main accused facilitated the transactions and cannot be disregarded simply because the mobile numbers do not belong to him or he received no direct monetary benefit. The State also emphasizes the applicant's criminal antecedents as a relevant factor in considering bail.