SUNITA BAI SONWANI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010382782026 2026:CGHC:44695
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9234 of 2026
Sunita Bai Sonwani W/o Late Shri Jamuna Prasad Sonwani Aged About
42 Years R/o Sadak Para Gram Kunwa P.S. Takhatpur District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. City Kotwali District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
... Non-Applicant(s)
For Applicant : Ms. Yogisha Singh Rajput, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. Adv. Gen.
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge
Order on Board
15/10/2026
1. The applicant has preferred Second Bail Application under Section
483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of
regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.
381/2026, registered at Police Station : City Kotwali, District-
Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467,
468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code.
2. The earlier first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this

2
Court for want of prosecution. Hence, the present second bail
application.
3. 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 Rs. 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 of the Indian Penal
Code, and he was subsequently arrested.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She
would further submit that the applicant is an illiterate and widowed
woman and has no criminal antecedents. It is also contended that
similarly situated co-accused persons facing allegations relating to
the same Government scheme and the alleged fraudulent
procurement of financial assistance have been granted anticipatory
bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC (A) Nos.
1220/2026 and 1231/2026, arising out of Crime Nos. 331/2026 and
381/2026, respectively, vide order dated 04.08.2026. She would
further submit that regular bail has also been granted to the

3
respective co-accused persons vide orders dated 18.08.2026
passed in MCRC Nos. 6251/2026, 6205/2026 and 6122/2026 and
the applicant is in judicial custody since 19.06.2026 and charge-
sheet has already been filed. Therefore, on the ground of parity and
considering the period of detention, she prays for grant of regular
bail.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the prayer
for grant of bail and submit that the allegations against the applicant
are 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 of Rs.
4,00,000/- under the Government scheme for death due to snake
bite or poisonous animal bite, thereby causing wrongful loss to the
State Exchequer. Accordingly, he prays for rejection of the bail
application.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary.
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, nature
of the allegations levelled against the applicant, the material
collected during investigation, the fact that similarly situated co-
accused persons have been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court, the applicant being a lady, having no criminal
antecedents and is in judicial custody since 19.06.2026, this Court
is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged
on bail. The allegations levelled against the applicant are matters to

4
be tested during trial and the charge-sheet has already been filed
before the competent Court. Further, the trial is likely to take
considerable time to conclude and continued pre-trial detention of
the applicant would not serve any fruitful purpose. Accordingly,
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am
inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed . It is
directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond
for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, she shall be released on
bail on the following conditions:-
(i) she 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 her from disclosing such fact to the Court;
(ii) she shall not act in any manner which will be
prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, &
(iii) she shall appear before the trial Court on each
and every date given to her by the said Court till
disposal of the trial.
- S/- Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Kunal