Regular bail granted on parity after charge-sheet filing, prolonged custody, and absence of criminal antecedents.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 314/2026 registered at Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 318, 338, 336, 340 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with Vijay Jangde and others, concealed the actual cause of death and fraudulently obtained ₹4,00,000 under the Government Snakebite/Poisonous Animal Bite Death Assistance Scheme, causing wrongful loss to the State exchequer.

The applicant denied involvement, contending that he neither received nor benefited from the amount and that no substantive documentary or other evidence connected him with the alleged transaction.

He had been in custody since 19.06.2026, while a co-accused had been granted bail by the High Court in MCRC No. 7500 of 2026 on 20.08.2026.

The State opposed bail but submitted that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the allegations, the materials in the case diary, and the filing of the charge-sheet.

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with the co-accused, along with consideration of his period of custody, absence of criminal antecedents, and the anticipated duration of the trial.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

In exercising that discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicant’s prima facie position, parity with a co-accused already granted bail, filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, length of custody, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial.

The Court also imposed conditions requiring attendance, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments, and personal appearance at significant stages of the trial, with consequences for misuse of bail.

The Court found that the applicant’s case stood on the same footing as that of co-accused Dharmendra Yadav, who had already been granted bail.

The filing of the charge-sheet reduced the immediate need for custodial investigation.

The Court further took into account that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, had remained in judicial custody since 19.06.2026, and that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Balancing these circumstances against the nature and gravity of the allegations, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted and that the applicant could be released subject to safeguards securing his presence and preventing abuse of the liberty of bail.

Sinku Singh Thakur was directed to be released in Crime No. 314/2026 upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, and to appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The order also provided for appropriate proceedings in the event of absence, proclamation, or misuse of bail.