1 2025:CGHC:34573 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1067 of 2025 • Dhanuklal Dhankar S/o Govind Ram Dhankar Aged About 33 Years R/o- Gram- Painkapar Chauki, Chichola, Police Station- Churiya District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Sho- Simga, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 21.07.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.387/2020, registered at Police Station – Simga, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 4,6,7,9,10,11 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 and 48 and 52 of Chhattisgarh Animal Transportation Act 1978 and 49, 49(A) and 50 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960. VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.07.29 10:43:24 +0530 2 2. As per prosecution story in brief, that on 07.11.2020, one Sameer Khan was taken 20 cattle in truck no. CG 08 AH 0785 and he was illegally transporting the agricultural cattle. Upon such basis, offence was registered and during investigation, it was found that the owner of the above mentioned truck no. CG 08 AH 0785 is present applicant Dhanuklal Dhankar. thereafter the concerned police station has registered the Crime No. 387/2020 registered in police Bhatapara (C.G.) station Simga, Distict Balodabazar against the sameer khan for an alleged offence punishable under Sections 4,6,7,9,10,11 of The Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 and 48 and 52 of Chhattisgarh Animal Transportation Act 1978 and 49, 49(A) and 50 of The prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960. Hence this anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of the said village and was never absconding. He also submits that the present applicant had made a rent agreement on 01.08.2020 of the truck with Sameer Khan, who is the main accused in this case and as per the rent agreement Sameer Khan used to give Rs.50,000/- per months to the present applicant in leu of the said vehicle. The applicant had no knowledge that any offence had been registered against him. He further argues that the applicant’s name has been implicated in the case solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused. He also submits that the name of the present applicant is not mentioned in the FIR, he has no direct or indirect involvement in the alleged offence. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 3 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the present applicant is a owner of the truck No. C.G.08 AH 0785, in which co-accused Sameer Khan was illegally transported 20 cattles. She further submits that the applicant has been absconding since the date of registration of the offence, and investigation against him is ongoing, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR, and from the perusal of the records available in the case diary, present applicant is a owner of the truck No. C.G.08 AH 0785, in which co-accused Sameer Khan was illegally transported 20 cattles and the applicant is stated to be absconding during the entire trial, thus, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. The Supreme Court, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) {(2012) 8 SCC 730} and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma {(2014) 2 SCC 171}, has observed that where the accused has been declared as an absconder and has not cooperated with the investigation, he should not be granted anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the second anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Dhanuklal Dhankar involved in Crime No.387/2020, registered at Police Station – Simga, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 4,6,7,9,10,11 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation 4 Act, 2004 and 48 and 52 of Chhattisgarh Animal Transportation Act 1978 and 49, 49(A) and 50 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali