Anticipatory bail granted on grounds of parity to accused involving alleged fraudulent crop insurance claims.

The applicant, Ramsingh Kashyap, sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 402/2025.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, in conspiracy with farmers, a CHC operator, and an insurance representative, submitted forged documents to fraudulently obtain over Rs. 6 lakhs in crop insurance benefits under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana.

An inquiry by the District Level Grievance Redressal Committee led to the registration of an FIR for offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The applicant moved the High Court seeking parity with four co-accused who had already been granted anticipatory bail in January 2026.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under the principle of parity with co-accused persons in the context of alleged financial fraud.

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the grant of anticipatory bail.

The court also considered the substantive offenses under Sections 318(4) (cheating), 338 (forgery of valuable security), 336(3) (forgery for purpose of cheating), 340(2) (using as genuine a forged document), and 61(2) (criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court relied on the judicial principle of parity, which suggests that similarly situated accused persons should be granted similar relief unless distinguishing factors exist.

The Court examined the case diary and the specific allegations involving the fraudulent claim of Rs. 6 lakhs from the government.

While acknowledging the gravity of the allegations regarding forged documents, the Court noted that the State and the Objector could not dispute that four other identically situated co-accused (Khuman Ram Janghel, Devendra Janghel, Mordhwaj Sahu, and Sunil Kumar) had already been granted anticipatory bail by the same Court in previous orders.

Without expressing an opinion on the final merits of the investigation, the Court determined that the principle of parity outweighed the opposition from the State, justifying the extension of bail to the applicant under similar conditions.

The holding directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released upon executing a personal bond with one surety.

The relief was made subject to conditions, including: (a) non-interference with witnesses; (b) cooperation with the trial; (c) regular appearance before the trial court; (d) submission of verified Aadhaar credentials; and (e) abstention from committing similar future offenses.