1 + 2026:CGHC:19611 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2698 of 2026 Hemant Kumar Vaishnav S/o Shri Pawan Vishnu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Kirgaha Tola, Churia Block, Shikari Mahka, Dist. Rajnandgaon --- Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Incharge Police Station-Churia, District- Rajnandgaon (Cg) --- Non-applicant Along with MCRC No. 2980 of 2026 Balmukund Janghel S/o Makhan Ram, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Suradabri , Tahsil And Police Station Chuikhadan, District- Khairagarh- Chuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.) (As Per Final Report) --- Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chhuria, District- Rajanadgaon (C.G.) --- Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Shahid Siddiqui, Advocate along with Ms. Vedagni Jangde, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Deputy A.G. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.04.2026 1. Since the above-mentioned two first bail applications arise out of same incident, same crime number and registered at same police station, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The applicants have preferred these First Bail Applications under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 294/2025, registered at Police Station : Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a report at the concerned police station alleging that under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojana for the year 2024–2025, in village Amgaon of Chhuriya Block, more than 50 hectares of land comprising 34 Khasras were registered in the names of Mr. Jai Bagga, Mr. Vaibhav Golchha, and Mr. Sudarshan Verma, who are partners of Rallij Bio Energy Private Limited. It is alleged that although a banana crop had been cultivated on the said land for over a year, the accused persons dishonestly obtained crop insurance for the year 2024–2025 by falsely showing cultivation of a chickpea crop. It is further alleged that, without any actual 3 harvesting or preparation of a panchnama, and in connivance with officials of the Agriculture Department, the Patwari, and the insurance agent, false claims were processed and an insurance amount exceeding ₹25 lakhs was wrongfully disbursed by projecting loss of a non-existent chickpea crop. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR has been registered against the applicants and co-accused vide Crime No. 294/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the BNS. Hence, these bail applications. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and no specific overt act has been attributed to them except vague and omnibus allegations. It is further submitted that the applicants had no role in the commission of the alleged offence and is innocent, the case arising out of alleged irregularities under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, without any direct evidence showing that the applicants prepared forged documents or committed any act of cheating. They further submit that similarly situated co-accused person, namely, Parmeshwar Sahu has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 3806/2026 vide order dated 27.04.2026 and the case of the present applicants are identical to that of the co-accused. So far as criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, applicants have no previous criminal antecedent registered. They are in jail since 02.02.2026 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, they submit that the present applicants are also entitled to be released on regular bail on the ground of 4 parity. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail applications of the applicants but could not dispute the fact that co- accused has already been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present applicants are identical to that of the co-accused. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicants and the fact that co-accused person, namely, Parmeshwar Sahu has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 3806/2026 vide order dated 27.04.2026 and the case of the present applicants are identical to that of the co-accused, further the fact that both the applicants have no previous criminal antecedents and they are in jail since 02.02.2026, charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the present applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 8. Accordingly, the bail applications of the applicants are allowed. Let the Applicants – Hemant Kumar Vaishnav and Balmukund Janghel, involved in Crime No. 294/2025, registered at Police Station : Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties 5 each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with 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 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 6 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 are 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. 9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan