1 CGHC010268462026 2026:CGHC:36932 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6618 of 2026 1 - Ranjeet Chaturvedi S/o Late Agrawal Chaturvedi, Aged About 40 Years R/o Housing Board Colony, No. 227, Village- Saida, P.S. And Tahsil Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P.S. Torwa, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Mohammed Waquar Rizvi, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant, who is in judicial custody in connection with Crime No. 330/2026 registered at Police Station Torwa, RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 193, 197 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that accused Santosh Kumar Suryavanshi, in connivance with co-accused persons, allegedly concealed the actual cause of death of his wife, Lata Suryavanshi, and fraudulently projected the death as having been caused by snakebite/poisonous creature bite, with an intention to obtain financial assistance under the Snakebite/Poisonous Creature Bite Assistance Scheme. Pursuant thereto, an amount of Rs. 4 lakh was sanctioned and credited to the accused’s IDBI Bank account, causing financial loss to the Government. During investigation, the scene of occurrence was inspected, statements of the concerned persons were recorded and the relevant bank details were obtained. The investigation revealed that the deceased had been suffering from a stomach ailment and had undergone sonography on 13.10.2023, whereas her death occurred on 16.10.2023. It is further alleged that co-accused Ranjit Kumar Chaturvedi and advocate Shravan Vastrakar, in connivance with the doctor who conducted the post-mortem, fraudulently prepared a post- mortem report showing snakebite as the cause of death. It is also alleged that the co-accused persons arranged for the compensation to be obtained and that the accused Santosh Kumar Suryavanshi received Rs. 4 lakh in his bank account, out of which Rs. 2 lakh was allegedly received as monetary benefit. Accordingly, Sections 465, 468, 471, 193 and 197 of the IPC were added to the case. The accused Santosh Kumar Suryavanshi was arrested on 19.06.2026 and was thereafter remanded to judicial custody. The arrest of co-accused 3 Shravan Vastrakar and the concerned doctor is yet to be made, and the investigation is still in progress. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has neither committed the alleged offence nor participated in the commission of the crime. It is submitted that the essential ingredients of Sections 420, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC are not made out against the applicant, even if the prosecution case is taken at its face value. It is further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to lack of proper preliminary verification and the registration of the offence is an abuse of the process of law. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in judicial custody since 19.06.2026 Learned counsel further submits that the alleged offences are triable by the Magistrate First Class and the trial is likely to take considerable time. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature. It is submitted that the applicant actively assisted co-accused Santosh Kumar Suryavanshi in fraudulently projecting the death as having been caused by snakebite and in obtaining government compensation of Rs. 4 lakh. The role attributed to the applicant is supported by the material collected during investigation and his custodial interrogation is necessary for a fair and complete investigation. Therefore, considering the nature of allegations and the stage of investigation, the applicant is not entitled to grant of bail. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the period of custody of the applicant since 19.06.2026, and the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. The allegations against the applicant, including his alleged assistance to the co-accused in obtaining government compensation, are matters to be adjudicated during the trial. The offences are triable by the Magistrate First Class, and the trial is likely to take considerable time. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let the Applicant –Ranjeet Chaturvedi involved in Crime No. 330/2026 registered at Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 193, 197 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two 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 open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. 5 (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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and the applicant fails 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 sufficient 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. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously from the receipt 6 of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Ruchi