Completed investigation and absence of any specific allegation of receiving scheme proceeds justified regular bail.

The applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 315/2026, registered at Police Station Koni for offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 341(2), 341(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the applicants and co-accused concealed the actual causes of death and falsely represented deaths as resulting from snakebite or poisonous-animal bite to obtain ₹4,00,000 in government assistance.

The applicants denied direct involvement and relied, among other matters, on bail orders granted to co-accused in similar cases.

The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations and six criminal antecedents attributed to applicant Akash Kumar Sahu.

The Court noted that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed.

1. Whether the applicants should be released on regular bail, having regard to the allegations, their respective roles, the asserted antecedents, parity with co-accused, and the stage of the proceedings.

2. If bail is granted, what conditions should govern the applicants’ release.

The applications were considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for the High Court’s and Court of Session’s powers to grant bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 341(2), 341(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court applied no cited precedent; its bail assessment considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicants’ alleged roles, parity with co-accused, detention, completion of investigation, likely delay in trial, and the criminal antecedents raised against one applicant.

The Court found that neither applicant was specifically alleged to have directly obtained or received the compensation.

It also considered their stated employment, bail granted to co-accused in similar cases, the applicants’ period of detention, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the likelihood that trial would take time.

Although the State raised the seriousness of the allegations and Akash Kumar Sahu’s antecedents, the Court concluded, on the overall circumstances and without commenting on the merits, that both applicants qualified for bail.

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting interference with witnesses or the fair and expeditious trial, and requiring the applicants to attend every hearing until disposal of the trial.