1 2026:CGHC:10777 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 343 of 2026 Premsingh Dhruv S/o Dhaniram Dhruv Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Mokha, P.S. Komakhan, Tehsil Bagbahra, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.03.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.12/2026 registered at Police Station – Komakhan, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, Inspection Team including Deputy Collector has inspected the Site of Paddy Procurement Center VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.03.02 16:48:06 +0530 2 of Gramin Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Baghamuda having its Registration No. 1064 and found that as per Online Entries, 1,25,878 harvested paddy is available but while physical verification it was found that there are 1,22,574 harvested paddy is there in procurement center. Hence there is difference of 3304 of Harvested Paddy amounting to Rs. 40,96,960/-Hence, the Applicant being In-Charge of Paddy Procurement Committee, is being made accused. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged. Copy of F.I.R. No. 12/2026 registered at PS Komakhan, District Mahasamund (C.G.). 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that as per the State Government Scheme, Gramin Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Baghamuda (Registration No. 1064) purchases paddy at its procurement centres in accordance with prescribed norms and real- time monitoring guidelines, and the gunny bags (bardana) in question are still lying at the procurement centre. It is submitted that the applicant had raised objections regarding improper counting of the gunny bags and requested recounting; however, without conducting proper verification or recounting in his presence, the authorities arbitrarily singled him out for prosecution. The applicant was neither working as Gunny Bag In-charge nor as Computer Operator responsible for making entries at the procurement centre, yet without examining the concerned persons, he has been made an accused. It is further submitted that the applicant was appointed as Assistant Manager on 02.05.2014 and was later appointed as Manager during the paddy procurement year 2024–25, discharging his duties sincerely and in accordance with resolutions passed in the Kisan Sabha, 3 including matters relating to defective gunny bags and procedural compliance. No prior allegation was ever levelled against him, and the inspection team failed to consider his specific objections before lodging the FIR. The applicant has utmost respect for his senior officials, has performed his duties to the best of his ability, and was not afforded an opportunity to rebut the allegations. He reserves his right to raise additional grounds at the time of hearing with the leave of this Hon’ble Court. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that during inspection of the Paddy Procurement Centre of Gramin Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Baghamuda (Registration No. 1064) by an Inspection Team headed by the Deputy Collector, a serious discrepancy was detected. As per online records, 1,25,878 bags of harvested paddy were shown as available; however, upon physical verification only 1,22,574 bags were found, resulting in a shortage of 3,304 bags valued at Rs. 40,96,960/-. It is submitted that at the relevant time the applicant was serving as In-Charge of the Paddy Procurement Committee and was responsible for overseeing procurement operations. In view of the substantial shortage and financial implications, the applicant has rightly been arraigned as an accused and does not deserve the benefit of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the material available in the case diary, it appears that the applicant, who was functioning as the Committee 4 Manager of the Paddy Procurement Centre, Baghamura, was responsible for the management of the procured stock. During inspection by the Deputy Collector and other officials, a shortage of 3,304 kattas of paddy was detected upon physical verification, resulting in a financial loss of Rs. 40,96,960/- to the Government. The applicant was present during verification but failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for the discrepancy. In view of the prima facie material indicating financial irregularities and considering the seriousness and magnitude of the loss involved, this Court is not inclined to grant bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Premsingh Dhruv, involved in Crime No.12/2026 registered at Police Station – Komakhan, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 316(5) of the BNS, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav