1 2025:CGHC:2808 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 82 of 2025 Sanwal Das Khandekar S/o Late Gariba Khandekar Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Douna, Police Station- Sargaon, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Of Police Station- Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Chandra Kumar, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.744/2024 registered at Police Station Masturi District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) read with Section 3(5) of B.N.S. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that, the complainant filed the report on 11-12-2024 stating therein that on the date of incident i.e. of 10-12- 2024 at 9.30 PM, he and his wife had dinner and sleeping in the Poultry Farm, at about 12.30 AM, his wife woke him up by calling KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 out that some peoples were loading the paddy in the Pick-up bearing vehicle No. CG-10-AA-2815 and his other companions had fled with the vehicle. The complainant along with other peoples followed the pick-up in the motorcycle, the said pick up had loaded with 48 bags of paddy worth of Rs.45,000/-. Upon such act of the applicant along with co-accused persons, the aforesaid offences have been registered against them. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed nor participated in this crime or like nature. He further submits that the applicant is neither committed nor participated in any such act, which may amount to any of the offences, mentioned above. Besides the above, the evidence collected by the prosecution are also not prima facie sufÏcient to hold the applicant guilty of the aforesaid offences. The present applicant is owner of the vehicle Pick-up No. CG-10-AA-2815. His son is driver of the said vehicle. After few days before, the incident, some peoples i.e. Maharaj Son of Sadhram, Pintu Son of Faguwa & Raja Son of Khadiya (All are the resident of Dighora, Charoti, Pathariya, District Mungeli) came and rented the vehicle, later on the present applicant found that his vehicle is involved in the theft, therefore, he has made accused in this case. The FIR was lodged against the driver of pick- up vehicle and other companions. No complaint has been lodged against the present applicant. The incident took place is in midnight of 10/11-12-2024 and the present applicant at the time of incident was at his home and he does not known anything about the 3 incident. Accordingly, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the present applicant along with other co-accused persons have stolen 81 quintals of paddy from the complainant’s field. He reported that on the night of 10.12.2024, at around 9:30 PM, he and his wife had gone to sleep in the poultry farm after having dinner. However, at around 12:30 AM, his wife woke him up, informing him that some people were loading paddy into a pickup vehicle. The complainant along with other villagers, chased the vehicle on motorcycles and found that the pickup vehicle, bearing registration number CG-10-AA-2815, had been abandoned by the driver and his accomplices due to a flat tire. The vehicle was found to contain 48 quintals of stolen paddy, valued at Rs. 45,000/-. The accused/applicant has admitted that the vehicle involved in the theft belongs to his son, which clearly indicates his involvement in the crime. Hence, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of dispute and material available in the case diary, it appears that the applicant is stated to be a registered owner of the vehicle and his vehicle was involved in the theft who was driven by his son however, the incident took place in the mid-night and the present applicant at the time of incident was 4 at his house and does not known anything about the incident and further the applicant has no criminal antecedent therefore, without further consideration on merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant- Sanwal Das Khandekar on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting OfÏcer, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on the following conditions:- (a) 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. (b) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) He shall 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 surety shall submit a copy of their adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) He shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal