1 2026:CGHC:24457 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 834 of 2026 • Santosh Khandelwal Son Of Heeralal Khandelwal, Aged About 58 Years Resident Of Ghutkela, Police Station Borai, Tehsil Nagri, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station Borai, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17/06/2026 1. This is Second 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 – Borai, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 339, 340 and 19(4) of Mandi Act. 2. The first anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant was rejected on merit by this Court in MCRCA No.249 of 2026 vide order dated 13.02.2026. VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.06.19 11:09:54 +0530 2 3. Prosecution case in brief is that applicant is license holder of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and same is granted under Mandi Act Section 32 sub Section 18(7), he is trading in the agricultural products, the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Nagri Secretary sent a letter dated 17.01.2026 while alleging that tempering with the permit issue to the applicant 5441 quantal of paddy worth Rs. 1,28,95,170/- has been illegally transport of which five times the market fee of Rs. 9,67,140/-, farmer welfare charge Rs. 3,22,380/- and destitute fee of Rs. 25,790/- of Krishi Upaj Mandi tax has been evaded it is further alleged that the business transaction of the applicant is not in the interest of Mandi Samiti it is alleged that it is a violation of Section 33 of the Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Act, 1972 call the explanation within 7 days. The said letter is replied by the applicant stated that he is downloaded the said permit is downloaded on the official website further there is any tempering is found, the applicant is apologies for the error have crept into the permit due to ignorance, the applicant further willing to deposit to the market fee, instead of proceeding accordance with law against the applicant, Bodhan Ram Mandai, the Secretary of Mandi of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Nagri lodged the FIR against the applicant on 22.01.2026 while the date of incident is projected in the FIR 15.11.2025 to 04.01.2026 and depositing the excess paddy in the Krishi Upaj Mandi as per the FIR, the permit has decided by the authority but the applicant is deposited the excess paddy and taken the amount for that and as such he is cheated the authority it is alleged, the applicant after registration of FIR for applied for anticipatory bail before the court below same was rejected. Thereafter, the applicant is applied for first regular bail application before the Hon'ble Court by way of M.Cr.C.(A) No. 249/2026, same was dismissed on merit on 13.02.2026. 3 Thereafter, the applicant has paid the outstanding amount and he is deposited the said amount Rs. 10,45,000/- on 21.05.2026, sum of Rs. 20,900/- on 21.05.2026 & sum of Rs. 2,000/- on 21.05.2026 as such total Rs. 10,67,900/- and after depositing the said amount the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, nagri District- Dhamtari closed the pending case against the applicant on same dat i.e., 21.05.2026. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He would submit that the first anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant was rejected on merit by this Court in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 249/2026 vide order dated 13.02.2026. He further submits that the applicant deposited the outstanding dues, namely 10,45,000/-, ₹ 20,900/- and 2,000/- on 21.05.2026, totaling 10,67,900/-. ₹ ₹ ₹ Consequent upon such deposit, the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Nagri, closed the pending departmental proceedings against the applicant on the same date. Further more investigation and trial are likely to take time, therefore, he submits that the present applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and the allegations levelled against the applicant, as Taking into account that the applicant's first anticipatory bail application was dismissed on merits by this Court via the order dated 13.02.2026 in 4 M.Cr.C.(A) No. 249/2026, and further noting that the applicant deposited the outstanding amounts namely 10,45,000/-, 20,900/-, ₹ ₹ and 2,000/- (totaling 10,67,900/-) on 21.05.2026 and given that ₹ ₹ the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Nagri, closed the departmental proceedings pending against the applicant on that very date, there are no grounds for filing a second anticipatory bail application. Under these circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant– Santosh Khandelwal filed under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 involved in Crime No.02/2026 registered at Police Station – Borai, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 339, 340 and 19(4) of Mandi Act, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali