1 2026:CGHC:27430 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1016 of 2026 Degree Lal Sahu S/o Dhaneshwar Sahu, Aged About 50 Years R/o Koltapara, Village- Pirda, Tahsil- Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police of Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of second anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 163/2024 registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The earlier anticipatory bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court in MCRCA No. 536/2024 vide order dated 20.05.2024 on merits. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. As per the prosecution case, in brief, is that during the paddy procurement season from 01.11.2020 to 30.01.2021, paddy was purchased at the Primary Krishi Sakha Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Pirda (hereinafter referred to as “the Society”). It is alleged that, upon physical verification of the stock, a shortage of paddy was detected, resulting in an alleged financial loss. On the basis of the said shortage, the present First Information Report came to be registered against the applicant and the other co-accused persons for the alleged commission of the offences in question. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that no prima facie material is available to connect him with the alleged offence. It is submitted that the applicant neither committed any criminal act nor derived any unlawful benefit from the alleged shortage of paddy. He submits that the applicant was appointed as the Authorized Officer of the Primary Krishi Sakha Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Pirda only on 07.09.2021, after Smt. Pallavi Meshram was relieved from the said post, whereas the alleged shortage pertains to the paddy procurement season from 01.11.2020 to 30.01.2021, much prior to his appointment. It is further submitted that, under the Paddy Procurement Policy, MARKFED was responsible for lifting the procured paddy within the prescribed time, and the alleged shortage occurred due to the failure of MARKFED to lift the paddy, as a result of which the stock remained exposed and got damaged. He further submits that the applicant, being an Observer of the District Co-operative Central Bank Maryadit, 3 Raipur, had repeatedly addressed communications to the concerned authorities for timely lifting of the paddy and also recommended departmental action against the then Society Manager, Kanhai Lal Seth, who was subsequently issued a show- cause notice and suspended. It is also submitted that the audit report has held the District Marketing Officer and the Society Manager responsible for the alleged shortage and not the present applicant. It is argued that proceedings under Section 58-B of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 on the same allegations are already pending before the competent authority. 5. Mr. Pradhan further submits that this is the second application for anticipatory bail, the earlier application having been rejected on merits, however, subsequent developments constitute a change in circumstances. It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court has already granted anticipatory bail to co-accused Smt. Pallavi Meshram, whose role is identical and who was posted as Authorized Officer prior to the applicant, thereby entitling the applicant to the benefit of parity. Though the anticipatory bail applications of certain other co- accused persons were rejected, and such rejection has also been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, their roles are clearly distinguishable, as they were functioning as the Branch Manager and Salesman of the Society during the relevant period, whereas the applicant assumed charge only after the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the applicant himself conducted the enquiry, prepared the panchnama against the Society Manager, and cooperated with the authorities throughout. He also submits that 4 complaints made by the villagers against Rohit Patel indicate that the present applicant has been falsely implicated due to personal animosity and conspiracy. It is lastly submitted that the applicant is a government servant having a fixed place of residence, has family responsibilities including the continuous medical treatment of his daughter, has no likelihood of absconding or tampering with the evidence, and that his custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor justified. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that this is the second application for anticipatory bail, as the earlier application preferred by the applicant was dismissed on merits. It is further submitted that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and relate to large-scale irregularities and shortage of paddy causing substantial loss to the public exchequer. He contends that the applicant, being the Authorized Officer/Observer, cannot escape his responsibility and that sufficient material has been collected during the course of investigation indicating his involvement in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that though this Hon’ble Court has granted anticipatory bail to co-accused Smt. Pallavi Meshram, the said order was passed on the facts and circumstances peculiar to her case and the applicant cannot claim bail as a matter of parity. He also points out that the anticipatory bail applications of the other co-accused persons have been rejected and such rejection has also been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which reflects the 5 gravity of the allegations and the seriousness of the offence. It is, therefore, submitted that no fresh or substantial change in circumstances has been shown after rejection of the earlier anticipatory bail application on merits so as to warrant reconsideration, and accordingly, the present second anticipatory bail application deserves to be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and nature of dispute and material available in case diary, and the fact that this is the second anticipatory bail application and the earlier anticipatory bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court in MCRCA No. 536/2024 vide order dated 20.05.2024 on merits. The allegations pertain to serious financial irregularities involving shortage of paddy during the procurement season, resulting in substantial loss to the public exchequer, and the investigation has collected material indicating the involvement of the applicant. Though learned counsel for the applicant has sought to invoke the principle of parity on the ground that co-accused Smt. Pallavi Meshram has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, the claim of parity cannot be accepted as a matter of right, as the role and circumstances of each accused are required to be examined independently. It is also significant that the anticipatory bail applications of the other co-accused persons have been rejected and such rejection has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme 6 Court, reflecting the seriousness of the allegations. This Court is further of the opinion that no subsequent event or substantial change in circumstances has been demonstrated after rejection of the earlier anticipatory bail application on merits so as to justify reconsideration of the present second application. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant second anticipatory bail to applicant. 9. Accordingly, the second anticipatory bail application of the applicant - Degree Lal Sahu, involved in Crime No. 163/2024 registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Rahul Dewangan