1 2025:CGHC:38102 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1173 of 2025 Rajendra Patel S/o Gandaram Patel Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Chakarda, Police Station Saraipali, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Saraipali District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 01.08.2025 1. The applicant has preferred the second anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.121/2025, registered at Police Station – Saraipali, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of BNS. 2. As per prosecution story in brief is that, in the physical verification at the Paddy Procurement Centre, Amarkot, during the Kharif paddy procurement season 2024-25, a shortfall of 11,416 bags of paddy was found out of total of 14,221 bags. Based on the standard weight of 40 kilograms per bag, the deficit amounts to 4,566.40 quintals of paddy, resulting in a financial loss of Rs. 1,65,80,908/- to the government at 2 the rate of Rs. 3100/- per quintal. The said paddy procurement work was being carried out under the supervision of the in Centre, charge of the the Paddy Procurement applicant/accused Kartikeshwar Yadav, resident of Mundha, Police Station Saraipali. Upon receiving complaints regarding irregularities at the procurement centre, an inquiry was conducted by a fact-finding committee. Based on the inquiry and the supporting evidence/documents, it was found that offences had been committed by Kartikeshwar Yadav (centre in- charge), Tejram Patel (in-charge of gunny bags), and Rajendra Patel (computer operator). Thus, in the bail objection reply, it is prima facie evident that the applicant/accused has been rightly identified and implicated as a co-accused. Being government employees, the accused persons committed irregularities at the Paddy Procurement Centre, causing substantial loss to the government, thereby clearly establishing that the accused persons have committed the offence through such irregularities. 3. The applicant respectfully submits that he has neither committed nor participated in any act constituting the offence alleged against him. He is merely employed as a Computer Operator and does not hold any authority to carry out or influence irregularities. The paddy procurement work in question was under the supervision of the In- charge, Kartikeshwar Yadav, and the applicant had no involvement in the alleged crime. Being a reputed individual in his locality, any arrest would severely damage his reputation. The applicant reserves the right to raise additional grounds and submit relevant documents during the hearing. He is willing to furnish adequate surety and comply with any conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court. Furthermore, he is a 3 permanent resident of the address stated in the cause title, with no risk of absconding, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory bail application of the present applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available in the case diary, it transpires that at the time of the incident, the applicant was working as a Computer Operator at the Paddy Procurement Centre, Amarkot, and under his supervision, the procurement of paddy was conducted. He is held responsible for the shortage of 4566.40 quintals of paddy from the said centre. In this case, anticipatory bail applications of two co-accused persons have already been rejected by this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is not a fit one for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Rajendra Patel, involved in Crime No.121/2025, registered at Police Station – Saraipali, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 318(4) read with Section 3(5) of BNS, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav