1 2026:CGHC:27241 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 993 of 2026 Joidha Ram Sahu S/o Shri Bholaram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Kalmidadar, Police Station- Tendukona, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police of Police Station- Tendukona, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Raghuvendra Pradhan, Advocate (through video- conferencing) and Mr. Vikram Pratap, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 02.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this second bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyay Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 12/2026, registered at Police Station – Tendukona, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 316(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Earlier first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2026 passed in MCRCA No. 392/2026. 3. As per the prosecution story, in brief, on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant, Shravan Singh Thakur, posted as Branch Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Raipur, Branch PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.07.03 16:16:23 +0530 2 Tendukona, and pursuant to the letter dated 27.01.2026 issued by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Cooperative, and Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, District Mahasamund, a physical verification of stock was conducted on 26.01.2026 at the Paddy Procurement Centre, Tendukona, of the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Registration No. 1127. During the verification carried out by the Naib Tehsildar, Bagbahara, and other officials, it was allegedly found that, against the online record of 1,44,794 sacks (katta) of paddy, only 1,42,645 sacks (katta) were physically available, thereby revealing a shortage of 2,149 sacks (859.60 quintals), resulting in an alleged financial loss of Rs. 26,64,760/- at the support price. On the basis of the said complaint, a prima facie offence under Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code) was registered against the present applicant, who was working as the Procurement In-charge, and the matter was taken up for investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent has he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that after the registration of the offence against the applicant, the charge of the Paddy Procurement Centre was given to some other person and thereafter the paddy were sent for the milling and at last, there was zero shortage as per report of the society and as such there was no misappropriation of paddy and in fact, when sudden inspection was made during the tenure of the present applicant, the purchase of the paddy was going on and therefore the paddy were not in proper stakes and therefore there was mistake in the counting by the persons, who has came for the inspection. He also submits that at present no shortage of paddy as per the report dated 01.06.2026. copy of the report dated 10.06.2026 is annexed as Annexure A-4. Further, the applicant has no any previous 3 criminal antecedents. Hence, he prays for grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2026 passed in MCRCA No. 392/2026 on merits. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in the present matter. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the document available, it transpires that first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated vide order dated 13.03.2026 passed in MCRCA No. 392/2026 on the ground that, upon an inquiry conducted by the Naib Tehsildar, the online records of the Tendukona Procurement Centre showed that 144,794 bags/sacks of paddy were available, however, upon physical verification, only 142,645 bags/sacks of paddy were found at the procurement centre, thus, a shortage of 2,149 bags/sacks (859.60 quintals) of paddy was detected between the online records and the physical stock, at the Minimum Support Price (MSP) of Rs.3,100 per quintal, this shortage amounted to Rs.26,64,760/-, indicating financial irregularities and causing economic loss to the Government. On the basis of the aforesaid material, the involvement of the applicant/accused, Joidha Ram Sahu, is prima facie disclosed. From the material available in the case diary, this Court deems it appropriate not to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the Second Anticipatory Bail application of the applicant – Joidha Ram Sahu filed under Section 482 of BNSS, involved in 4 Crime No. 12/2026, registered at Police Station – Tendukona, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 316(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. Sd/-- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti