Regular bail was justified given the post-mortem’s snakebite finding and the likely duration of trial.

The three applicants were arrested in Crime No. 938/2026, registered at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, concerning alleged forged documents and fabricated medical records used to obtain ₹4,00,000 under the Government Snake Bite/Poisonous Animal Bite Death Assistance Scheme.

The applicants faced charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC; the first applicant was also charged under Section 120-B.

The applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

They denied involvement in fraud and relied, among other matters, on the post-mortem report recording snake bite as the cause of death.

The State opposed bail, alleging concealment of the actual cause of death and wrongful loss to the exchequer.

The High Court heard the connected applications together and considered the case diary.

Whether the applicants should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, having regard to the allegations, investigation material and circumstances of their detention.

Whether continued pre-trial detention was warranted where the post-mortem report recorded snake bite as the cause of death and the allegations remained to be tested at trial.

The applications were considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant bail.

In deciding whether to grant regular bail, the Court considered the circumstances of the case, including the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the applicants’ period of detention, relevant criminal antecedents, and the likely time required for trial.

The Court weighed the serious allegations of fraud against the investigation material and the post-mortem report, which recorded snake bite as the cause of death.

It also considered the applicants’ periods of detention and treated cases registered in connection with the same episode as distinct from previous criminal antecedents.

Since the allegations were matters for trial, and trial was likely to take time, the Court concluded that further pre-trial detention would serve no fruitful purpose.

It directed that each applicant be released upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to conditions requiring availability for police interrogation when required, non-interference with witnesses, and conduct consistent with a fair and expeditious trial.

The trial Court was directed to decide the cases on their own merits.