1 CGHC010367892026 2026:CGHC:42755 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8800 of 2026 Kush Kumar Gupta S/o Late Bodhram Gupta Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Khairgarhi, Police Station Saria District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Mahavir City, Rajkishore Nagar, Ankita Sharmas House B- 53 Police Station Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S H O, Police Station Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01/10/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 937/2026, registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that an FIR was lodged alleging that the applicant, acting in collusion with other co-accused persons, 2 prepared forged and fabricated documents to portray a non-snake bite death as a death caused by a snake bite/poisonous animal bite. By falsely representing the cause of death, the applicant and co-accused fraudulently claimed and obtained financial compensation of ₹4,00,000/- under the Government Snake Bite/Poisonous Animal Bite Death Assistance Scheme, thereby causing wrongful loss to the State exchequer and wrongful gain to themselves. On the basis of these allegations, the applicant was implicated and subsequently arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He submits that the applicant has neither committed any offence nor played an active role in obtaining the financial assistance in question by fraudulent means; he was merely an employee at a private bank and assisted in opening a bank account in the ordinary course of business. The assistance 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 criminally liable merely because the financial assistance was subsequently called into question. 4. He further submits that a similarly situated co-accused person, namely Ashish Mishra, has already been enlarged on regular bail by this Court vide order dated 18.08.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 5956/2026. Learned counsel fairly points out that while the applicant has four criminal antecedents registered in the year 2026 for similar offences under Sections 318(4), 304(2), 336(3), 3(5), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), all those cases remain pending adjudication and no conviction has been recorded. It is further submitted that the investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 12.07.2026; therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 3 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the applicant are grave and serious in nature. It is alleged that the applicant, acting in connivance with other co-accused persons, concealed the actual cause of death and fraudulently secured 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. Hence, it is submitted that no case is made out for the grant of regular bail to the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the material collected during the course of investigation; taking into account the pre-trial detention of the applicant since 12.07.2026, the completion of the investigation culminating in the filing of the charge-sheet, and the fact that a similarly situated co-accused has already been extended the benefit of regular bail, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of regular bail. The veracity of the allegations levelled against the applicant is a matter to be tested during trial, and the continued incarceration of the applicant would not serve any fruitful purpose, especially when the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present bail application is allowed. 9. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions: 4 (i) He 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 facts to the Court or the police; (ii) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; and (iii) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till the 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. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim