1 CGHC010382652026 2026:CGHC:42762 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9286 of 2026 Dharmendra Yadav S/o Late Dashrath Yadav Aged About 43 Years Resident Of Sipat Chowk, Chattarji Gali, Near House Of Badal Khan, Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, Dist. Bilaspur C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Sarkanda, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Deputy Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01/10/2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. Admit. 3. Case diary is available. 4. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 5. 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. 2 938/2026, 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. 6. 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 of the said allegations, an FIR was registered against the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and he was subsequently arrested. 7. 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 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 grant of financial assistance was subsequently questioned. He further submits that co-accused persons, namely Ashish Mishra and Subhash Chandra, have already been enlarged on regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 18.08.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos. 6956/2026 and 6251/2026, respectively. He further submits that though the applicant has two criminal antecedents registered in the year 2026 under Sections 318(4), 304(2), 336(3), 3(5), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), are arising out of same incident and these matters 3 are still pending. The investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 11.08.2026; therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the applicant are grave and 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 State 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 for the grant of regular bail is made out. 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 10.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 the investigation; taking into account the detention period of the applicant since 11.08.2026, the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, and that similarly situated co-accused have already been enlarged on regular bail; the criminal antecedents against the applicant are of the same year (2026) and are pending adjudication, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a fit case for the grant of regular bail. 11.The veracity of the allegations levelled against the applicant is a matter to be tested during the course of the trial, and the continued pre-trial incarceration of the applicant would not serve any fruitful purpose, especially when the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. 12.Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present bail application is allowed. 4 13.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: (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 merits. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim