1 2025:CGHC:10285 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 281 of 2025 Jai Prakash Ogre S/o Sirdhari Ogre Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No.- 10, Jaistambhpara, Majgaon, P.S.- Hathband, District - Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Bhatapara City, District - Baloda Bazar -Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.03.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 50/2018 registered at Police Station – Bhatapara City, District - Baloda Bazar -Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 409, 34 of the IPC. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.03.03 17:17:31 +0530 2 2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 14.02.2018, the complainant Manish Agrawal, a representative of Sumit Facilities Pvt Ltd., has lodged a complaint stating that from 01.04.2017 to 19.11.2017 the total collection from sale of liquor at Govt. Foreign Liquor Shop, Bhatapara No. 2, Hathnipara was Rs. 7,53,60,300/- however only Rs. 7,38,48,270/- was deposited in the bank account and hence there was a discrepancy of Rs. 15,12,030/-. On the basis of said complaint, F.I.R. has been registered against 9 employees of the Company working in the said shop. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the alleged offence. The liquor shops of Distict Baloda Bazar were being operated by Sumit Facilities Pvt. Ltd. and therefore the shop in question i.e. Foreign Liquor Shop No. 2 Hathnikhar was also being operated by the said Company. The applicant was employed in the said Company as Supervisor till 18.07.2017. Further, on 15.05.2017 at about 9:20 p.m., one Lalu Manikpuri alongwith his accomplices came to the shop after it was closed and when staff refused to sell liquor, they were assaulted by the accused persons who also looted the cash lying in the shop. A report to this effect was lodged by the Salesman Arun Kumar Jangde bearing Crime No. 161/2017, 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the Applicant left the Company on 18.07.2017 and after about 7 months the instant complaint has been lodged by the Complainant. The Applicant had duly explained the aforesaid details to the Police and therefore no action was taken on the report of the Complainant for 3 about 6 years. The Police has recently arrested one Kamlesh Pandey named in the F.I.R. and therefore there is apprehension of arrest. Also, the Applicant is suffering from Polio in both lower limbs and is physically disable. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant and submits that the case is at the investigation stage and charge-sheet has yet to be filed. Anticipatory bail application should be accepted exceptionally in such cases in which prima facie involvement in the crime is not shown whereas in this case the involvement of the applicant is prima facie visible. Also, no such exceptional circumstances are shown in this bail application on the basis of which the benefit of anticipatory bail should be given to the accused/applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents taken on record. 7. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of dispute and material available in case diary, it transpires that though the case was registered in the year 2018, but the charge-sheet has not been filed yet and further after about 6 years, the Police has recently arrested one Kamlesh Pandey named in the F.I.R, thus the applicant has come up before this Court for the first time after his bail was rejected by the trial Court in the year 2018 and then after his bail was rejected by the sessions Court on 03.02.2025. Further, taking 4 into consideration the fact that applicant is suffering from Polio in both lower limbs and is physically disabled and though the case pertains to the year 2018, but the charge-sheet has not been filed yet, as such, without further commenting anything on merits, this Court deems it fit to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Jai Prakash Ogre, on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting OfÏcer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) He should 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. (b) He should not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) He should appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The Applicant and the sureties shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) He should not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Manpreet