1 2026:CGHC:5047 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 144 of 2026 Shivakant Tiwari S/o Diwakar Prasad Tiwari Aged About 31 Years R/o Navapara Gharghoda, Ps- Gharghoda District- Raigarh- (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Lailunga District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.01.2026 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.02/2026 registered at Police Station – Lailunga District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 316(3), 3(5) of the BNS 2023. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 06.01.2025 a written report was lodged by the Senior Assistant, District Marketing Officer, Raigarh VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.30 10:50:51 +0530 2 along with the Food Inspector, alleging that one Kishan Nishad had illegally procured Public Distribution System (PDS) Bardana (bags) from various Government Fair Price Shops, including those situated in Village Panchayat Keshala and other areas of Lailunga. It was alleged that the said accused procured 95,198 PDS Bardana from the Lailunga area, 51,500 PDS Bardana from the Gharghoda area and 90,475 PDS Bardana from the Tamnar area, totaling 2,37,173 PDS Bardana, out of which, upon physical verification, only 1,47,832 Bardana were found available, whereas the remaining 89,341 PDS Bardana were found missing and alleged to have been misappropriated, causing a loss of Rs. 22,33,525/- to the Government, thereby attracting criminal liability against the accused. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case, no role whatsoever in the allegations levelled by the prosecution; that there is absolutely nothing on record to indicate that the applicant has committed any offence, nor is there any specific or overt allegation against him; that a bare perusal of the FIR itself reveals that vide order dated 11.04.2025, the main accused, Kishan Nishad, was duly authorized to procure PDS bardana (bags) from different fair price shops; that the inquiry report of the joint team further discloses that the said accused Kishan Nishad has stated that he sold the bardana along with Dev Kumar and that during physical verification, a portion of the bardana was recovered from the house of accused Kishan Nishad, thereby clearly pointing towards his primary involvement; that the present applicant is a 70% permanently disabled/physically challenged person and it was never part of his duties to procure or store bardana, 3 as supported by the disability certificate annexed as Annexure-A/3; that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and enjoys a good reputation in society; and that, in view of the prosecution story itself, the main allegations are against accused Kishan Nishad and not against the present applicant, who therefore deserves sympathetic consideration for grant of anticipatory bail, especially when there is no likelihood of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail, therefore, he prays for grant bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available in the case diary, and further considering that the present applicant has no role whatsoever in the allegations levelled by the prosecution, that there is nothing on record to indicate that he has committed any offence, nor is there any specific or overt allegation against him, that a perusal of the FIR itself reveals that vide order dated 11.04.2025 the main accused, Kishan Nishad, was authorized to procure the PDS bardana, and that the present applicant is a 70% permanently disabled/physically challenged person, and that the case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of the co-accused Kishan Nishad, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 4 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Shivakant Tiwari, on executing a personal bond and one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of her adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav