1 2025:CGHC:22177 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 752 of 2025 Dilaram Tandan S/o Shri Sukhram Tandan Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Chanmuda, Post Chatipali, Thana Kosir, District Sarangarh - Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kosir, District Sarangarh - Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant :Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State :Mr. Sangarsh Pandey. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 20.05.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.94/2025, registered at Police Station –Kosir, District Sarangarh - Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh, for the offence punishable 2 under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on the instructions of the Collector, a five members enquiry team has been constituted and physical verification of the Paddy Procurement Center, Kosir has been done wherein it was found that there is shortage of 3,043.22 quintal paddy amounting to Rs.94,33,983/-. In the inquiry, it is revealed that the computer operator has made the forged entry regarding the purchase of paddy. Based upon report, FIR was registered against the applicant for the aforementioned offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was appointed as ‘Fad Prabhari’ on temporary basis in the procurement Center for the period from 14.11.2024 to 31.03.2025 in a fixed pay of Rs.7,000/- per month. The applicant has been implicated in this case only on the ground that he was working as ‘Fad Prabhari’ at the Centre in the year 2024-25, though he has not committed any fraud, forgery or misappropriation of the Govt. fund in the paddy procurement center. The Inquiry Team, to protect the government officials who were responsible for loss of paddy, directed to lodge the report against the applicant and others who are the small workers of the society, however, the actual culprits is Nodal Officer and Markfed officers who have not transported the paddy within prescribed time. The applicant is not responsible for any of the false entry made by the computer 3 operator. Hence, it is prayed that applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the anticipatory bail application of the present applicant and submits that the present applicant is involved in a misappropriation of 3,043.22 quintal of paddy amounting to Rs.94,33,983/-, therefore, 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 nature and gravity of the offence and material on record in the case diary, and the fact that the present applicant was working as ‘Fad Prabhari’ at the Procurement Centre in the year 2024-25 is also equally responsible for shortage of paddy 3,043.22 quintal of paddy amounting to Rs.94,33,983/- and also that the inquiry report shows that the present applicant is clearly involved in this crime/offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Dilaram Tandan is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice J.