Allowed

Narendra Kaushik v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Sept 2026MCRC/8184/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for an applicant arrested for cheating and forgery offences related to fraudulent government claims. The Court noted the Post-Mortem Report stated the cause of death was a snake bite, which falls within the scheme's scope, noting no material showed document fabrication at the claim's inception. Considering the absence of criminal antecedents and the nature of allegations as yet to be tested, the Court granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on regular bail conditioned on executing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with one surety, accompanied by a bond not to tamper with witnesses, act prejudicially to the trial, and appear on all dates.

Narendra Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010341282026

2026:CGHC:40822

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCRC No. 8184 of 2026

¶7

Narendra Kaushik S/o Lakhan Lal Kaushik Aged About 59 Years R/o Om Nagar, Jarhabhata Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Sarkanda District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Non-Applicant

¶12

For Applicant : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate

¶13

For Non-Applicant : Dr. Saurabh Pandey, Deputy Advocate General

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

18/09/2026

¶17

The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.936/2026, registered at Police Station- Sarkanda, District Bilaspur for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34, 120B of IPC.

¶18

The prosecution case, in brief, is that a report was lodged by Daulat Ram Thakur, Naib Nazir Grade-II, Office of the Tahsildar, Bilaspur (C.G.), alleging that the applicant, along with other co-accused persons, prepared forged documents and fabricated medical records to fraudulently obtain financial assistance of 4,00,000/-₹ under the Government Snake Bite/Poisonous Animal Bite Death Assistance Scheme, thereby causing loss to the State exchequer. It is further alleged that the applicant manipulated official records in connection with the incident. On the basis of the said

¶19

¶20

allegations, an FIR was registered against the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and he was subsequently arrested.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He would further submit that the applicant has neither committed any offence nor played any role in obtaining the financial assistance in question by fraudulent means. The amount was sanctioned and disbursed by the competent Government authorities only after due scrutiny and verification of the relevant documents; therefore, the applicant cannot be held responsible merely because the financial assistance was subsequently questioned. Learned counsel would contend that Post-Mortem Report itself records the cause of death as "snake bite", which squarely falls within the scope of the aforesaid scheme. There is no material on record to show that the applicant fabricated any document or practised deception at the inception of the claim. He would further contend that even assuming there is any dispute regarding entitlement or eligibility for obtaining the financial assistance, the same is essentially administrative in nature and, in the absence of the essential ingredients of cheating, would not constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code; thus, the continued incarceration of the applicant is wholly unwarranted. The applicant is in jail since 19.07.2026 and has no criminal antecedents; therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶22

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature. It is alleged that the applicant, in connivance with other co-accused persons, concealed the actual cause of death and fraudulently obtained financial assistance to the tune of 4,00,000/-₹ under the Government’s Snake Bite/Poisonous Animal Bite Death Assistance Scheme, thereby causing wrongful loss to the State exchequer; thus, no case is made out for grant of regular bail to the applicant.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the

¶25

¶26

allegations, the material collected during the course of investigation, the fact that the Post-Mortem Report reflects the cause of death as snake bite, and taking into account the detention of the applicant since 19.07.2026 as well as the absence of any criminal antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for the grant of regular bail. The allegations levelled against the applicant are matters to be tested during the course of trial, and the continued pre-trial detention of the applicant would not serve any fruitful purpose, especially when the trial is likely to take some time to conclude.

¶27

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present bail application is allowed .

¶28

It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail, on following conditions :-

¶29

(i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court,

¶30

(ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and

¶31

(iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶32

The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits.

Sd/-

Rakesh Mohan Pandey

JUDGE

Nadim

Narendra Kaushik v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Kaushik v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases