1 CGHC010359082026 2026:CGHC:42823 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8798 of 2026 1 - Keshav Kumar Kashyap S/o Kantilal Kashyap Aged About 36 Years R/o Devnagar, Koni, Thana Koni, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Koni, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant (s) : Mr. Aishwary Diwan, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Keshav Gupta, G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.10.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 317/2026, registered at Police Station- Koni, District Bilaspur for the offence punishable under Sections 318, 338, 336, 340, 3(5) of BNS. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a report was lodged by Daulat Ram Thakur, Naib Nazir Grade-II, Office of the Tahsildar, Bilaspur (C.G.), alleging that the applicant, along with other co-accused persons, prepared forged documents and fabricated medical records to fraudulently obtain financial assistance of ₹4,00,000/- under the Government Snake Bite/Poisonous Animal Bite Death Assistance Scheme, thereby causing loss to the State exchequer. It is further alleged that the applicant manipulated official records in connection with the incident. On the basis Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.10.01 19:04:47 +0530 2 of the said allegations, an FIR was registered against the applicant for the aforesid offences and he was subsequently arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case and the applicant is husband of the deceased. He would further submit that the applicant has neither committed any offence nor played any role in obtaining the financial assistance in question by fraudulent means. The amount was sanctioned and disbursed by the competent Government authorities only after due scrutiny and verification of the relevant documents; therefore, the applicant cannot be held responsible merely because the financial assistance was subsequently questioned. Learned counsel would contend that Post-Mortem Report itself records the cause of death as "snake bite", which squarely falls within the scope of the aforesaid scheme. There is no material on record to show that the applicant fabricated any document or practised deception at the inception of the claim. He would further contend that even assuming there is any dispute regarding entitlement or eligibility for obtaining the financial assistance, the same is essentially administrative in nature. The applicant is in jail since 20.06.2026 and he has no criminal antecedents; therefore, hhe may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature. It is alleged that the applicant, in connivance with other co-accused persons, concealed the actual cause of death and fraudulently obtained financial assistance to the tune of 4,00,000/- under the Government’s ₹ Snake Bite/Poisonous Animal Bite Death Assistance Scheme, thereby causing wrongful loss to the State exchequer; thus, no case is made out for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during the course of investigation, the fact that the Post-Mortem Report reflects the cause of death as snake bite, and taking into account the detention of the applicant 3 since 20.06.2026 as well as the absence of any criminal antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for the grant of regular bail. The allegations levelled against the applicant are matters to be tested during the course of trial, and the continued pre-trial detention of the applicant would not serve any fruitful purpose, especially when the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present bail application is allowed. 8. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, she shall be released on bail, on following conditions :- (i) she shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court, (ii) she shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and (iii) she shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial. The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Jyoti