Regular Bail Granted to Portal Operator Alleging Lack of Dishonest Intent in Agricultural Insurance Fraud

The applicant, a CSC/portal operator, filed a First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, in conspiracy with partners of Rallij Bio Energy Private Limited and government officials, facilitated a fraudulent insurance claim exceeding ₹25 lakhs under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojana.

It was alleged that a non-existent chickpea crop was insured for land actually cultivating bananas to secure wrongful disbursements.

The applicant was arrested on December 13, 2025, and a charge-sheet was subsequently filed.

1. Whether the applicant, acting as a portal operator without verification authority, is entitled to regular bail considering the nature of the allegations and period of detention.

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) regarding regular bail.

It assessed the elements of "cheating" and "dishonest intention" (formerly under IPC, now BNS) and the impact of the departmental enquiry report as non-substantive evidence unless proved at trial.

The Court also applied the principle of parity and evaluated the specific roles of accused persons in economic offences involving public trust.

The applicant contended that his role was strictly clerical, limited to data entry based on provided documents, and lacked the authority to verify land or approve claims.

The Court noted that while the allegations involved a well-planned fraud, the prosecution’s own narrative placed the applicant as a CSC/portal operator with no specific evidence of him forging documents or possessing dishonest intent.

The Court observed that a co-accused remained in custody despite having a later arrest date (February 2, 2026) than the applicant (December 13, 2025).

Furthermore, since the charge-sheet was already filed and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court determined that continued detention was unnecessary as the evidence was documentary and the trial would be lengthy.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond with two local sureties, subject to conditions including: mandatory attendance on trial dates, non-interference with evidence, and strict compliance with Sections 209 and 351 of the BNSS.