AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge
This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 330/2026 registered at Police Station -Torwa, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under DEWANGAN Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 193, 197 and 34 of Indian Penal Digitallysigned by Code.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused Santosh Kumar Suryavanshi, in connivance with other co-accused persons, allegedly concealed the actual cause of death of his wife, Lata Suryavanshi, who had died due to illness, and fraudulently obtained an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- under the government assistance scheme meant for death caused by snake bite or poisonous creatures, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Government. During investigation, the bank details revealed that the said compensation amount was credited to the IDBI Bank account of the accused and was utilized by him. It is further alleged that the co-accused persons, in connivance with the doctor who conducted the post-mortem, prepared a false report showing the cause of death as snake bite, and an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was allegedly transferred to the account of co-accused Ranjit Kumar Chaturvedi towards the expenses and benefit arising from the fraudulent claim. Accordingly, offences under Sections 420, 34, 465, 468, 471, 193 and 197 of the IPC were registered and, during investigation, the accused persons including the present applicant were arrested and sent to judicial remand.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed and that the applicant has been in jail since 17.07.2026. He further submits that the co-accused persons, namely, Santosh Kumar Suryavanshi and Ranjeet Chaturvedi, have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC Nos. 6122/2026 and 6618/2026, respectively, vide order dated 18.08.2026. He also submits that the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents under the IPC, which have been duly explained in paragraph 4(a) of the bail application. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed. However, he could not dispute the fact that the similarly situated co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the document available on record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, allegations levelled against the applicant and the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed and that the applicant is in jail since 17.07.2026, also considering the fact that co-accused persons, namely, Santosh Kumar Suryavanshi and Ranjeet Chaturvedi, have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC Nos. 6122/2026 and 6618/2026, respectively, vide order dated 18.08.2026, further the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents under the IPC, which have been duly explained in paragraph 4(a) of the bail application, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the Applicant -Dr. Priyanka Soni involved in Crime No. 330/2026 registered at Police Station - Torwa, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 193, 197 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-
The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.
The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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.
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 proceed against her in accordance with law.
Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.