Regular bail granted after chargesheet filing, applying parity with similarly situated co-accused.

The applicant, Dr. Priyanka Soni, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 331/2026 registered at Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 193, 197 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The prosecution alleged that accused Santosh Kumar Suryavanshi, in connivance with other accused persons, concealed that his wife had died due to illness and fraudulently obtained ₹4,00,000 under a government scheme intended for deaths caused by snakebite or poisonous creatures.

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

The applicant contended that she was innocent, had been falsely implicated, had been in custody since 17 July 2026, and that the charge-sheet had been filed.

She also relied on bail granted to co-accused Smt. Shafina Bano and anticipatory bail granted to co-accused Shravan Kumar Vastrakar.

The State opposed the application but did not dispute the grant of bail to the similarly situated co-accused.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in view of the allegations, the filing of the charge-sheet, and her period of custody?

2. Whether bail should be granted on the principle of parity with the co-accused who had already been granted regular bail or anticipatory 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 applied Section 483 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to an accused in custody.

It considered the general bail factors, including the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the material allegations, the stage of the proceedings, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of incarceration, and the possibility of parity with similarly situated co-accused.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 193, 197 and 34 of the IPC, concerning cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, fabrication or use of false evidence, and acts done in furtherance of common intention.

The Court also treated the applicant’s explained criminal antecedents as a relevant but non-conclusive consideration while determining entitlement to bail.

The Court balanced the seriousness of the allegations against the procedural circumstances of the case.

Although the prosecution alleged involvement in a fraudulent compensation claim and preparation of a false post-mortem report, the charge-sheet had already been filed and the applicant had remained in custody since 17 July 2026.

The State could not dispute that similarly situated co-accused had already received regular bail or anticipatory bail, supporting the applicant’s claim of parity.

The Court further noted that the applicant’s two criminal antecedents had been explained in the bail application and did not, in the circumstances, outweigh the other factors favouring release.

On an overall assessment of the nature of the allegations, the stage of the proceedings, the period of custody, and parity, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring her not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain represented or present on each date fixed, to comply with proceedings relating to proclamation and non-appearance, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of her statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.