1 2026:CGHC:10751 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 287 of 2026 Naved Memon S/o Mohammed Yusuf Aged About 20 Years R/o Nawagaon Ghutera Road Police Station Mungeli Tehsil Mungeli District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant :Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate, along with Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State :Mr. S.S. Baghel, 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. 35/2026 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali Mungeli, District Mungeli(C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.03.02 16:48:07 +0530 2 316(5), 61(2) 3(5) of the BNS 2023 and Sections 3(7) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 2. According to the prosecution case, on 10.01.2026 a notification was received through the I.C.C.C. application regarding suspected bogus lifting and transportation of paddy by certain rice mills in collusion with procurement centres, wherein vehicle data reflected transportation of quantities far beyond the permissible load capacity. Pursuant to the said information, an enquiry team conducted inspection of three units situated at Nawagaon Ghutera, namely two Upleta Rice Mills and National Dal Mill. During inspection, it was found that there were no separate bounded godowns and serious irregularities were noticed in stacking arrangements and maintenance of records. Upon physical verification, the stock was assessed at 1,87,606 bags of paddy, which was 29,681 bags in excess of the quantity reflected in the online records, and the said discrepancy was allegedly acknowledged by the mill operators in their self-declaration. The enquiry report further alleges that several low-capacity vehicles were shown in the records as having transported quantities of paddy far exceeding their permissible carrying capacity, which was treated as fictitious transportation entries. On the basis of these findings, it has been alleged that there was a planned misappropriation of government paddy, resulting in financial loss to the State. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted as it stands, no offence is made out against the applicant under Sections 318(4), 3 316(5), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. As per the prosecution itself, the principal allegation pertains to vehicles allegedly shown as transporting paddy far in excess of their registered load capacity, and on that basis the Investigating Agency has inferred bogus transportation and misappropriation. It is submitted that the applicant is neither the owner nor in charge of any of the vehicles in question, has never arranged, authorized or supervised loading or overloading of paddy, and has not issued or signed any transport document, gate-pass or delivery order relating to the alleged transactions. Even assuming any irregularity in overloading, liability, if any, would lie with the registered vehicle owners or those directly responsible for the transportation process, and not with the present applicant, who is neither the proprietor of National Dal Mill nor the transport organizer. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents; his brother is suffering from a mental ailment requiring constant care, and his father is presently in jail, resulting in severe financial hardship to the family. In these circumstances, custodial interrogation of the applicant is neither necessary nor justified. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, possesses movable and immovable property there, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with evidence, and he is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and abide by all conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and nature of dispute and materials available on record, without further commenting anything on merits, this Court find it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Naved Memon, 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 him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his 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