1 2025:CGHC:37925 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6031 of 2025 Amit Sharma S/o Prahlad Sharma Aged About 39 Years (Age Of The Applicant Not Mentioned In The Order-Sheet) R/o P.S. C.T. House No. 96, Changorabhatha, P.S. D.D. Nagar, Dist- Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Mujgahan, Raipur (C.G.) (Name of Police Station Is Not Mentioned Properly In The Cause Title Of The Order-Sheet) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State. : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.08.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 22/2024 registered at Police Station Mujgahan, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. Prosecution story in brief, is that in compliance with Letter No. E-6/Urv./Vi.Vi.Dh./2023-24/1165 dated 09.01.2024 issued by the Directorate of Agriculture, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, a surprise inspection ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.02 11:19:51 +0530 2 was conducted by the State and District Level Fertilizer Flying Squad at the premises of M/s Diksha Sales and Marketing, Datrenga, Block- Dharsiva, on 10.01.2024 at 11:00 AM. Upon arrival, the sales centre was found closed. When contacted by Mr. Sumit Sori, Assistant Director, Directorate of Agriculture, the proprietor, Amit Sharma, informed that he was in Kondagaon and would appear before the Directorate the following day. However, he failed to appear as stated. Subsequently, on 12.01.2024, another inspection was conducted, and the sales centre was again found closed. Repeated attempts to contact the proprietor were unsuccessful. Based on inquiries made with local residents, it was revealed that the sales centre had not been operational for the past one or two months and that Amit Sharma was allegedly conducting fertilizer business from a godown located at Sejbahar. Further investigation and local inquiry at Sejbahar revealed that Amit Sharma was storing fertilizers illegally in the godown of Shri Rohit Kumar Banchhor, son of Shri Enak Ram Banchhor. Upon being contacted, Mr. Rohit Kumar Banchhor stated that the said godown had been rented to Amit Sharma by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Banchhor. With cooperation, the godown was opened and inspected, wherein 358 sacks of fertilizers (including 59 unmarked sacks, 54 sacks labeled as “Cancelled Rejected Bags,” and 245 marked sacks containing Urea, Gromore, etc.), weighing approximately 170.65 quintals, were found stored. The fertilizers were seized under Section 28(1)(D) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, and the seized goods were handed over to Mr. Rajesh Kumar Banchhor. It was found that the said godown was not registered under the authorization of M/s Diksha Sales and Marketing, Datrenga, thereby confirming the unauthorized and illegal storage and sale of fertilizers. A report regarding the seizure was submitted to the Collector, Raipur, via 3 Letter No. Fertilizer/2023-24/934 Dhartiwan dated 12.01.2024, and upon receiving due sanction on 15.01.2024, directions were issued to lodge an FIR against Amit Sharma. Accordingly, the present FIR was registered under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 at Police Station Mujgahan, District Raipur, C.G., based on which the applicant was arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in the aforementioned case. He submits that on perusal of the F.I.R., it becomes evident that the godown was raided by the flying squad solely on the basis of alleged oral statements made by some villagers. It is pertinent to mention here that not a single statement of the alleged villagers has been submitted along with the charge sheet, which casts serious doubt over the prosecution story. Furthermore, the owner of the godown from where the fertilizers were allegedly confiscated was neither examined by the complainant/flying squad nor has he been arrayed as an accused in the complaint or the F.I.R., which further weakens the credibility of the prosecution’s case. He submits that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that the godown from which the fertilizers were seized neither belongs to the applicant nor was it under his control. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to establish that the offending vehicle was operating under the instruction or direction of the applicant. It is also pertinent to mention that another FIR, bearing Crime No. 49, has been registered under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, at Police Station Berla, District Bemetara, on a similar set of facts. This further raises serious doubts about the authenticity and genuineness of the prosecution’s case. He also submits that no evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution to show that the applicant had stored the fertilizers either in 4 the offending vehicle or in the said godown. It is also significant to note that the rent agreement between Rajesh Kumar Banchhor and the applicant clearly shows that the tenancy ended on 31.12.2023, and no new agreement was executed thereafter. Despite the confiscated fertilizers being handed over to the owner of the godown, the F.I.R. has been registered against the applicant, which is wholly unjustified and abitrary. He further submits that the present applicant has 03 criminal antecedents for which he has already been given explanation in the present bail application. He also submits that the applicant has been in jail since 24.05.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the present applicant has 03 criminal antecedents for which he has already been given explanation in the present bail application, moreover, the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case and present applicant is in jail since 24.05.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Amit Sharma, involved in Crime No. 22/2024 registered at Police Station Mujgahan, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential 5 Commodities Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed 6 against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek