1 2026:CGHC:10253 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 305 of 2026 Gendlal Sai Paikara S/o Devsharan Sai Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Bagiya, Police Station And Tahsil Kansabel, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.02.2026 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.07/2026 registered at Police Station – Kansabel, District – Jashpur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 316(3), & 318(4) of the BNS. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.02.28 10:54:16 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, the complainant, Food Inspector Anup Kujur, submitted a report to the police stating that on 13.01.2026 at about 12:50 PM, two tractors carrying 125 gunny bags of paddy each were intercepted and enquired into, and upon verification it was allegedly found that the paddy was being transported illegally by co-accused Yaman Behra and Maneshwar, who during enquiry disclosed that co-accused Devendra Vishwakarma had loaded the said paddy from Vedansh Rice Mill belonging to the present applicant for transporting it to Uparjan Kendra Chongribahar for sale in the name and token of one agriculturist, Anthony Ekka; thereafter, a team conducted inspection at Vedansh Rice Mill owned by the applicant and carried out physical verification of the stock, wherein it was allegedly found that 24,379 gunny bags of paddy, weighing approximately 9,751.60 quintals, were short in storage, and on the basis of such findings, the prosecution has alleged that the applicant along with other co-accused persons misused the government procurement scheme by illegally selling the paddy which had been kept for the purpose of custom milling. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not acted in the manner alleged by the prosecution. It is submitted that the applicant is the Director of Vedansh Rice Mill and that on 13.01.2026, when the co-accused persons were intercepted by the Food Inspector while allegedly transporting 3 paddy, the Rice Mill of the applicant was also seized on the very same day by the Food Department, even prior to issuance of the show cause notice. It is further submitted that the Collector, Jashpur issued a show cause notice dated 14.01.2026 alleging shortage of 9751.60 quintals of paddy and sought a reply within three days; however, before the applicant could submit his explanation, the mill had already been seized and an FIR came to be registered on 15.01.2026. The applicant thereafter submitted his reply on 03.02.2026 stating that he was ready to provide 6533.57 quintals of rice against the alleged shortage of paddy, but due to seizure of the mill, he was unable to supply the same. It is also submitted that for the year 2024–2025, the applicant has furnished substantial financial securities including a bank guarantee of Rs. 67,40,000/-, FDR of Rs. 56,60,000/- and post-dated cheque amounting to Rs. 79,34,000/-, totaling Rs. 2,03,34,000/-, which demonstrates his bona fides. It is further submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, there is no likelihood of his absconding, he is ready to furnish adequate surety and undertakes to abide by all terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the application and submits that two tractors loaded with paddy were intercepted and, during enquiry, it was disclosed that the paddy had been loaded from the applicant’s rice mill for illegal sale under the government 4 procurement scheme. Subsequent inspection of the mill revealed a shortage of 9,751.60 quintals of paddy, prima facie indicating diversion of stock and causing loss to the State exchequer. It is further submitted that the anticipatory bail applications of two co- accused have already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.02.2026 in MCRCA No. 196 of 2026 and MCRCA No. 198 of 2025; therefore, on the ground of parity and considering the gravity and magnitude of the offence, the present applicant is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory 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 complainant, Food Inspector Anup Kujur, reported that on 13.01.2026 two tractors carrying 125 gunny bags of paddy each were intercepted and, upon enquiry, it was allegedly found that the paddy had been loaded from Vedansh Rice Mill belonging to the present applicant for illegal sale under the government procurement scheme; during subsequent inspection and physical verification of the stock at the said rice mill, a shortage of 24,379 gunny bags of paddy, weighing approximately 9,751.60 quintals, was allegedly detected, and prima facie the material collected during investigation indicates diversion and misuse of paddy kept for custom milling, thereby 5 causing substantial loss to the State exchequer; it is also pertinent to note that the anticipatory bail applications of two co- accused have already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.02.2026 in MCRCA No. 196 of 2026 and MCRCA No. 198 of 2025, therefore, in view of the seriousness of the allegations and the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant, and accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Gendlal Sai Paikara , involved in Crime No.07/2026 registered at Police Station – Kansabel, District - Jashpur(C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 316(3), & 318(4) of the BNS, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav