1 2026:CGHC:19418 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3806 of 2026 Parmeshwar Sahu S/o Prakash Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Nagar Panchayat Chhuriya, Tahsil - Chhuriya Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.04.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 294/2025, registered at Police Station : Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report at the concerned police station alleging that under the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Pradhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojana for the year 2024–2025, in village Amgaon of Chhuriya Block, more than 50 hectares of land comprising 34 Khasras were registered in the names of Mr. Jai Bagga, Mr. Vaibhav Golchha, and Mr. Sudarshan Verma, who are partners of Rallij Bio Energy Private Limited. It is alleged that although a banana crop had been cultivated on the said land for over a year, the accused persons dishonestly obtained crop insurance for the year 2024–2025 by falsely showing cultivation of a chickpea crop. It is further alleged that, without any actual harvesting or preparation of a panchnama, and in connivance with ofÏcials of the Agriculture Department, the Patwari, and the insurance agent, false claims were processed and an insurance amount exceeding ₹25 lakhs was wrongfully disbursed by projecting loss of a non-existent chickpea crop. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR has been registered against the applicant and co-accused vide Crime No. 294/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the BNS, hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and no specific overt act has been attributed to him except vague and omnibus allegations. It is further submitted that the applicant had no role in the commission of the alleged offence and is innocent, the case arising out of alleged irregularities under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, without any direct evidence showing that the applicant prepared forged documents or committed any act of cheating. As per the 3 prosecution story itself, the applicant was merely working as a CSC/portal operator, whose duties were limited to data entry on the basis of documents provided by farmers or concerned ofÏcials, and he had no authority to verify land ownership or approve insurance claims. It is contended that the applicant acted in good faith in the ordinary course of his duties and had no knowledge of any alleged forgery, and thus the essential ingredient of cheating, i.e., dishonest intention, is completely absent. It is further submitted that the case is primarily based on a departmental enquiry report, which is not substantive evidence unless duly proved during trial, and no specific farmer has made any direct allegation against the applicant. He also submits that co-accused persons having similar or more serious roles have been granted bail or are entitled to parity. The entire evidence is documentary in nature and already in possession of the investigating agency, leaving no scope for tampering. It is also submitted that the amount allegedly credited to Parmeshwar Sahu’s account is comparatively minor in relation to the total alleged fraud, the applicant is willing to cooperate with the trial. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the charge- sheet has been submitted before the competent Court, and he is in jail since 13.12.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. He further 4 submits that the applicant is actively involved in a well-planned fraud pertaining to the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, wherein false entries were made to secure insurance claims for a non-existent chickpea crop, despite actual cultivation of banana crop on the said land, resulting in wrongful disbursement of an amount exceeding ₹25 lakhs. It is contended that the role of the applicant cannot be termed as merely clerical, as he facilitated the fraudulent transactions by entering false data on the portal in connivance with other accused persons, thereby playing a crucial part in the commission of the offence. It is further submitted that the allegations are serious in nature involving economic offence and breach of public trust, and the investigation has revealed sufÏcient material indicating his complicity. He also submits that the bail application of a co-accused in MCRC No. 2698/2026 is presently pending and the Hon’ble Court has directed the matter to be listed after four weeks, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to claim parity at this stage. It is thus prayed that considering the gravity of the offence and the applicant’s involvement, the present applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, though the allegation against the present applicant is that he was involved in facilitating fraudulent insurance claims under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana by making false entries regarding a non-existent chickpea crop, but as per the prosecution story itself, the role 5 attributed to the applicant is that of a CSC/portal operator and there is no specific material to show that he had any direct role in preparation of forged documents or that he acted with requisite dishonest intention. It is also pertinent to note that though the bail application of a co-accused in MCRC No. 2698/2026 is presently pending and this Court has directed the same to be listed after four weeks, the said co-accused is in jail since 02.02.2026, whereas the present applicant is in jail since 13.12.2025. Also considering the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. Considering the period of detention, the nature of allegations, the role attributed to the applicant, and the fact that the trial is likely to take time for its conclusion, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Parmeshwar Sahu, involved in Crime No. 294/2025, registered at Police Station : Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be 6 open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and the applicant fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him, in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan