1 CGHC010261772026 2026:CGHC:36860 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6251 of 2026 1 - Subhash Chandra Pathak S/o Tungan Prasad Pathak Aged About 66 Years R/o Jabrapara, Sarkanda, Thana Sarkanda, Bilaspur Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, 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. 939/2026 registered at Police Station RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Shri Daulat Ram Thakur, Naib Nazir Grade-II, posted in the Office of the Tahsildar, Bilaspur, submitted a written report before Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, alleging that the applicant, Subhash Chandra Pathak, along with other persons, deliberately concealed the actual cause of death and, by fraudulent means, obtained financial assistance under the Government’s Snakebite/Poisonous Animal Bite Death Assistance Scheme, thereby causing wrongful loss to the State exchequer and corresponding wrongful gain to the beneficiaries. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 939/2026 was registered at Police Station Sarkanda for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC, and investigation was taken up. The case diary further reveals that the present case arose during an inquiry conducted pursuant to Legislative Assembly Question No. 1188 concerning deaths allegedly caused by snakebite and poisonous creatures within Tahsil Bilaspur. During the inquiry, fifteen cases within Bilaspur Sub-Division were found to disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offences, including two cases falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sarkanda. During investigation, it was alleged that the applicant had suppressed the actual cause of death and falsely projected the death as having been caused by snakebite/poisonous animal bite, thereby facilitating the wrongful receipt of financial assistance of Rs. 4,00,000/- under the aforesaid Government scheme. The applicant was arrested on 19.06.2026 and was thereafter remanded to judicial custody. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant has not committed the alleged offence. The applicant’s wife died in the year 2020, and thereafter, one of the co-accused informed him that the Government had announced financial assistance for the families of persons who had died during the COVID-19 period. Believing the said representation to be genuine, the applicant, in good faith, signed certain papers and provided copies of his wife’s documents. It is further submitted that the applicant never visited the Collector’s Office or the Tehsil Office for claiming any compensation, nor did he submit any application or personally furnish his bank account details to any Government authority. The applicant also did not prepare, execute or use any forged or fabricated document in relation to the alleged offence. It is also submitted that co-accused Mahendra Kumar Manhar has been granted anticipatory bail in another crime by order dated 11.03.2026 in MCRCA No. 378 of 2026. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 19.06.2026, has no criminal antecedents 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, in connivance with the co-accused persons, deliberately concealed the actual cause of death of his wife and falsely projected it as death due to snakebite/poisonous animal bite, thereby facilitating the wrongful receipt of financial assistance of Rs. 4,00,000/- under the Government scheme and causing loss to the 4 State exchequer. It is further submitted that the applicant’s role in the alleged offence is under investigation and the material collected so far discloses his prima facie involvement. Therefore, considering the nature of the allegations and the material collected during investigation, learned State counsel submits that the applicant is 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. 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, 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 are matters to be tested during trial and the trial is likely to take considerable time. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let the Applicant –Subhash Chandra Pathak involved in Crime No. 939/2026 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 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 5 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 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 6 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 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