1 2026:CGHC:349 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9541 of 2025 Sunita Paikra W/o Ganesh Aged About 25 Years R/o Ghutrapara, P.S. And Tahsil-Ambikapur, Distt- Surguja C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Ambikapur, District – Surguja, C.G. ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 742/2025, registered at Police Station – Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 120(B) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that on 7.10.2025 Food inspector Shivkumar Mishra, lodged the written report before the police station Ambikapur, alleging that the Govt. faire price shop of I.D no. 391001071, 391001029 & 391001054 are operated by the Jankalyan RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Khaadya Suraksha Poshan and Upbhokta Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ghutrapra (Ambikapur) and the concern food inspector inspected the all faire price shop run by the Jankalyan Samiti and during the inspection as of September 2022 and March 2024, a shortage was found in all shops. The total value of the food grains was Rs 6494120.67/-, which included a shortage of 1631.29 quintal of rice worth of Rs 61,62,267.96/- 10.43 quintal of Sugar worth of Rs 49,160.62/- and 48.34 quintal of chickpeas worth of Rs 29,26,92/- and for the said shortage of the essential food grains in all shops, the president and Vice president of the Jankalyan Khaadya Suraksha Poshan and Upbhokta Sewa Sahkari Samiti - Ghutrapra (Ambikapur) namely Pawan Singh and Smt. Sunita Paikra and salesman of the all faire price shops namely Farhan Sidique, Prince Jaiswal and Mukesh Yadav are jointly responsible. On the basis of report lodge by the complainant, police registered the alleged offences against the present applicant and other accused persons. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no criminal antecedents registered against the applicant. It is further submitted that on the last date of hearing the case was adjourned as the charge-sheet was not filed, but the same is likely to be filed today before the competent Court, and the applicant is in jail since 15.10.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there is no criminal antecedents registered 3 against the applicant, and the charge-sheet has not been filed in this case and the case is under investigation. Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that there is no criminal antecedents registered against the applicant, and considering the incarceration period of the applicant as he is in jail since 15.10.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Let applicant, Sunita Paikra, involved in Crime No. 742/2025, registered at Police Station – Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 120(B) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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. 4 (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 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 Rajshekhar