Regular bail granted to accused doctor considering prolonged custody and the trial’s likely delay.

The applicant, Dr. Priyanka Soni, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 841/2026 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with others, deliberately concealed the actual cause of death by preparing an incorrect post-mortem report showing death due to snakebite, thereby facilitating wrongful payment of ₹4,00,000 under the Government Snakebite/Poisonous Animal Bite Death Assistance Scheme and causing corresponding loss to the State exchequer.

The applicant was shown as arrested in the present case on 6 August 2026.

She sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that investigation concerning her had substantially concluded, that she was a doctor with no likelihood of absconding, and that the trial would take time.

The State opposed bail on the basis of the specific allegation of preparing a false post-mortem report, three similar criminal antecedents, and the fact that the charge-sheet had not yet been filed.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the allegations of preparing a false post-mortem report, her alleged criminal antecedents, and the pendency of investigation?

Whether the applicant’s custody, status as a lady doctor, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial justified release on bail subject to conditions?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The allegations were founded on Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, concerning cheating, forgery, use of forged documents and criminal conspiracy.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the material available on record, the period of custody, the applicant’s personal circumstances, the likelihood of the trial taking time, and the need to impose conditions securing her presence and preventing misuse of liberty.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegation that the applicant had prepared a false post-mortem report and also noted the State’s objection regarding her alleged similar criminal antecedents and the non-filing of the charge-sheet.

However, after considering the materials on record, the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s status as a lady doctor, her custody since 6 August 2026, and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court addressed the State’s concerns by imposing conditions requiring the applicant to attend the proceedings, avoid unnecessary adjournments, remain personally present at key stages of the trial, and comply with consequences for misuse of bail.

The release was made subject to conditions requiring her not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial Court as directed, to appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of her statement, and to face proceedings in accordance with law in the event of absence or misuse of bail.

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