DR. PRIYANKA SONI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1
GOURI
MUDALIAR

CGHC010338482026 2026:CGHC:39354
Digitally signed
by GOURI
MUDALIAR
Date: 2026.09.09
13:01:04 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8239 of 2026
Dr. Priyanka Soni W/o Shri Mihir Savita Mohan Aged About 36 Years
Senior Resident Doctor Indira Gandhi Govt. College And Hospital (I G G
M C H ) Nagpur ( M H ) R/o Plot No.314 H B Instate Phase Songaon
Nagpur (M.H.) Permanent R/o House No.50, Gouri Ganesh Colony
Mangla Shubham Vihar Bilaspur Dist- Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (S.H.O.) P.S. Civil
Lines District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Applicant : Shri Devershi Thakur along with Shubhojeet
Majumdar, Advocate.
For
: Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A.
Respondent/State

SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order on Board
08/09/2026
1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the

2
applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.
841/2026 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District- Bilaspur
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,
120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Daulat Ram
Thakur, Naib Nazir Garde-II posted in the Office of the Tahsildar,
Bilaspur, CG, submitted a written report before Police Station Civil
Lines, District Bilaspur, CG alleging that the present applicant, Dr.
Priyanka Soni, along with other persons, had deliberately concealed
the actual cause of death and, by adopting fraudulent means,
dishonestly obtained financial assistance of Rs.4,00,000/- under the
Government's Snakebite/Poisonous Animal Bite Death Assistance
Scheme, thereby causing wrongful loss to the State exchequer and
corresponding wrongful gain to themselves. Upon finding a prima facie
case, an offence under Crime No. 841/2026 u/s 420, 467, 468, 471,
120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been registered by the Police
Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur, CG and the matter was taken up
for investigation. During investigation the applicant has been arrested
on 06/08/2026. Hence this bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the
allegation the applicant has prepared the postmortem report disclosing
that the death of the deceased is due to snake bite which has been
subsequently found to be wrong report as death was not due to the
snake bite. He would submit that the applicant was arrested on
17/07/2026 in other case and shown to be arrested in this case on
06/08/2026 and by now all the interrogation so far as relate to the

3
applicant may have been concluded. He would submit that the
applicant by profession is a doctor and therefore there is no
apprehension of her absconding, she will participate in the
investigation proceedings and conclusion of trial may take some time,
hence she be granted bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the
submission of learned counsel for the applicant and he would submit
that there are specific allegation against the applicant of preparation of
false postmortem report. He would submit that there are three more
criminal antecedents against the applicant of similar nature. He would
also submit that charge sheet has not been filed in this case.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials
available on record.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
submission of learned counsel for the parties, materials available on
record, nature of allegation levelled against the applicant, applicant is a
lady doctor and she is in jail since 06/08/2026 in this case and also
considering the fact that trial is likely to take some time for its
conclusion, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I
am inclined to allow this bail application.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that the
applicant shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond
in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the
satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that-

4
(i) 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.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial
court on each date fixed, either personally or through
her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient
cause, the trial court may proceed against her under
Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) 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 her, in accordance with law,
under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) 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.
8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
gouri