1 2025:CGHC:23559 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 771 of 2025 1 - Sanjay Kumar Sahu S/o Late Teej Ram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No.-2, Bajrang Chowk, Vill. - Pachri, Dist. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 2 - Devnarayan Chandra S/o Radheshyam Chandra Aged About 42 Years R/o Vill. - Salaunikala, Bhatgaon, Dist. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station - Bhatgaon, Dist. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Naveen Nirala, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 12.06.2025 1. The applicants have preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Second Anticipatory Bail, apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 24/2025, registered at Police Station – Bhatgaon, District – Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The earlier anticipatory bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court in MCRCA No. 313 of 2025 vide order dated 05.03.2025 on merits. 3. The prosecution's story, in brief, is that Ramratan Ratnakar, Branch Manager at District Cooperative Central Bank, Bhatgaon branch, lodged a report at Bhatgaon Police Station. In the report, he alleged that on 24.01.2025, Sub-Divisional Officer Versha Bansal conducted an inspection at the Paddy Procurement Centre in Salaunikala. Upon inspecting the stock and register, a shortage of 1,894 quintals of paddy was discovered. A report detailing the findings was submitted to the Collector of Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, who directed the registration of an FIR against the responsible persons from the paddy procurement society. Based on this report, offenses under Sections 316(5) and 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, have been registered against the accused, including the present applicants. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that Earlier, the applicant No. 1 was given the charge of Samiti Manager of Paddy Procurement Samiti, Salaunikala. However, vide order dated November 22, 2024, the Prescribed Authority, Prathmik Krishi Sakh Samiti Maryadit, Salaunikala, relieved Applicant No. 1 from the charge of Samiti Manager and directed that the charge be handed over to Bharat Kumar Chandrakar. He also submits that pursuant to the above order, applicant No. 1 handed over the charge of Samiti Manager to Bharat Kumar Chandrakar. Previously, 3 Applicant No. 2 worked as Fad Incharge in Salaunikala Samiti and was not involved in the purchase and delivery of paddy. The applicants have never misappropriated the society's paddy and are not responsible for the shortage of paddy in Salaunikala Samiti. An inspection was conducted at the Paddy Procurement Centre, Salaunikala, on January 24, 2025. At that time, the applicants were not holding the charge of Samiti Manager and Fad Incharge. The shortage of paddy could have been due to dryness and waste caused by storing it in the open. He further submits that according to government norms and guidelines, paddy should have been lifted within 24 hours for custom milling. However, despite these guidelines, the paddy purchased by Salaunikala Samiti was not lifted on time, resulting in the paddy being stored in an open area, leading to the shortage. The applicants are not responsible for the criminal charges related to this incident. Therefore, he prays for grant of second anticipatory bail to the applicants. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory bail application of the present applicants and submits that the present applicants are involved in a misappropriation 1,894 quintals of paddy, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and material available in case diary, and the fact that this is the second anticipatory bail application and 4 the earlier anticipatory bail application of the applicants have been rejected by this Court in MCRCA No. 313 of 2025 vide order dated 05.03.2025 on merits and there is no new ground raised in this second anticipatory bail application, as such, I am not inclined to grant second anticipatory bail to applicants. Accordingly, the second anticipatory bail application of the applicants - Sanjay Kumar Sahu and Devnarayan Chandra, involved in Crime No. 24/2025, registered at Police Station – Bhatgaon, District – Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan