1 CGHC010285232026 2026:CGHC:36859 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6871 of 2026 1 - Smt. Shivkumari Yadav W/o Late Pawan Yadav Aged About 40 Years 2 - Smt. Damani Yadav W/o Ashok Yadav Aged About 34 Years Both are R/o Talapara Taiba Chowk Khan Bada, P.S. Civil Line, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Banhiman Roy, 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. The present 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 applicants, who are in judicial custody in RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 connection with Crime No. 841/2026 registered at Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 2. As per the prosecution case, in brief, it is alleged that the complainant lodged a report before Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur, alleging that the applicants had illegally obtained an amount of ₹4,00,000/- under the Government Welfare Scheme in the name of Snake Bite/Poisonous Animal Bite assistance. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No. 841/2026 was registered at Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent ladies and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that they have neither committed the alleged offences nor have they received or derived any benefit from the amount of ₹4,00,000/- allegedly obtained under the Government Welfare Scheme. It is contended that there is no documentary evidence on record to establish that the applicants received, misappropriated or otherwise dealt with the alleged amount. It is further submitted that there is no material to show that the applicants cheated or defrauded the complainant or were involved in any conspiracy. Learned counsel submits that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and have been in judicial custody since 19.06.2026. It is further submitted that Applicant No.1 is a widow and Applicant No.2 is a housewife and both are working as labourers for their livelihood. The alleged offences are 3 triable by the learned JMFC and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, continued incarceration of the applicants would serve no useful purpose and would amount to pre-trial punishment. On these grounds, the applicants deserve to be enlarged on regular bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the applicants are serious in nature. It is alleged that the applicants, in connivance with other persons, illegally obtained financial assistance of ₹4,00,000/- under the Government’s Snake Bite/Poisonous Animal Bite Assistance Scheme by adopting fraudulent means and using forged and fabricated documents. Learned State counsel further submits that the role of the applicants and their involvement in the alleged transaction are subject to investigation and appreciation of evidence. At this stage, the absence of direct recovery of the amount from the applicants does not, by itself, absolve them of the alleged offences, particularly when the prosecution alleges their involvement in the conspiracy. Considering the nature of the allegations and the material collected during investigation, applicants are not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the material available on record, the fact that the applicants have been in judicial custody since 19.06.2026 and they have no criminal antecedents, this Court is of the considered view that the applicants deserve to be enlarged on regular bail. It is also relevant to 4 note that there is no allegation of any direct receipt of the alleged amount by the applicants and the alleged offences are triable by the learned JMFC. The applicants are ladies, Applicant No.1 being a widow and Applicant No.2 being a housewife, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, their continued incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicants are entitled to be released on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicants, namely Shivkumari Yadav and Damani Yadav, involved in Crime No. 841/2026 registered at Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient 5 cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants 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 them 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 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 for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Ruchi