Bail granted on parity where similarly situated co-accused had already been enlarged on bail.

The applicant, Dr. Priyanka Soni, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 330/2026 registered at Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur, for alleged offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 193, 197 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution alleged that accused Santosh Kumar Suryavanshi, in connivance with other accused persons, concealed the actual cause of death of his wife, who had allegedly died from illness, and fraudulently obtained ₹4,00,000 under a government assistance scheme intended for deaths caused by snakebite or poisonous creatures.

It was further alleged that a false post-mortem report was prepared showing snakebite as the cause of death and that ₹2,00,000 was transferred to co-accused Ranjeet Kumar Chaturvedi.

The applicant was alleged to have been involved in the preparation of the false medical report.

The applicant contended that she was innocent, had been falsely implicated, and had remained in custody since 17 July 2026.

She also relied on the filing of the charge-sheet, the grant of bail to co-accused Santosh Kumar Suryavanshi and Ranjeet Chaturvedi, and her explanation of two previous criminal antecedents.

The State opposed the application but did not dispute that the similarly situated co-accused had been granted bail.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the allegations, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the period of custody?

2. Whether the principle of parity applied because similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail?

3. Whether the applicant’s two previous criminal antecedents constituted a sufficient ground to deny bail, despite their explanation in the bail application?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of regular bail by the High Court or Court of Session.

The alleged offences were under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 193, 197 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, false evidence, issuance or use of a false certificate, and acts done in furtherance of common intention.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of custody, and the principle of parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail.

The Court also considered the applicant’s criminal antecedents after noting that they had been explained in the bail application.

The Court found that the charge-sheet had already been filed and that the applicant had remained in custody since 17 July 2026, reducing the immediate requirement for continued custodial detention.

Although the allegations concerned an alleged fraudulent government compensation claim and preparation of a false medical report, the Court gave significant weight to the fact that the similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench.

The State was unable to dispute the grant of bail to those co-accused.

The applicant’s two antecedents were also not treated as decisive because they had been explained in the bail application.

Balancing the nature of the allegations with custody, completion of investigation, and parity, the Court concluded that the applicant was entitled to bail.

The bail was made subject to conditions, including not seeking adjournments when witnesses are present, appearance before the trial Court, compliance with proceedings concerning absence or misuse of bail, and personal presence on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of her statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The Court also directed transmission of a certified copy of the order to the trial Court for compliance.