1 CGHC010177002026 2026:CGHC:28558 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4225 of 2026 Shobha Singh W/o. Late Shri Santosh Praveen Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o. Darripara Ambikapur, Tahsil Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.) 497001 ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 497001 ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Curtis Collins, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 256/2026 registered at Police Station- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 316(5) of of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, during an inspection conducted on 11.03.2026 at the Fair Price Shop, Ambikapur, which was being operated by the applicant in her capacity as President of KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 the Samriddhi Women Self-Help Group, discrepancies were allegedly found in the stock of food grains distributed under the Public Distribution System (PDS). Upon verification of the records and physical stock, shortages were found in Rice, Sugar, Gram (Chana) and Salt. It is alleged that there was a shortage of 14.22 quintals in the stock account, and upon further verification, a total shortage of 139.49 quintals of Rice was found, whereas 0.78 quintal of Salt was found in excess. According to the prosecution, the said discrepancy caused a loss of Rs. 5,51,112/- to the State Government and constituted violations of Clauses 5(1), 5(24), 11(5), 11(6), 13(2), 14(2) and 15 of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is further alleged that, on the basis of the inspection report, an FIR was lodged against the present applicant in connection with Crime No. 256/2026 for the offence punishable under Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to personal malice and a preconceived conspiracy. It is submitted that even prior to the registration of the FIR dated 22.04.2026, the applicant had submitted a detailed complaint dated 16.04.2026 before the Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), against the concerned Food Inspector, the Municipal Corporator and the husband of the Municipal Corporator, specifically alleging that they were threatening to falsely implicate her in a criminal case. In 3 paragraph 2 of the said complaint, the applicant had categorically stated that, under a conspiracy, a shortage of 149.41 quintals of rice had been shown despite the fact that the amount corresponding to the alleged shortage had already been deposited/adjusted, thereby demonstrating that the present prosecution is a retaliatory action. 4. It is further submitted that the conduct of the concerned Food Officer/Inspector has been questioned even earlier, as in proceedings dated 30.05.2025 initiated against the applicant without affording her an opportunity of hearing, the Hon’ble High Court, while allowing W.P.(C) No. 3155/2025 by order dated 25.06.2025, had quashed the entire proceedings and made adverse observations against the administrative action. He further submits that upon receipt of the show-cause notice regarding the inspection dated 11.03.2026, the applicant submitted a detailed reply on 30.03.2026 explaining that the Fair Price Shop has been operated by her Self-Help Group since the year 2015 and that minor shortages in rice stock occasionally occur due to drying of food grains, handling losses during distribution, machine malfunction, server-related issues and other operational difficulties. The applicant had further expressed her willingness to adjust the value of the alleged shortage from the pending commission and savings of the Self-Help Group and had also undertaken to make good any remaining deficiency within a stipulated period. With regard to the alleged excess stock of 0.78 quintal of salt, it was specifically explained that several salt packets were torn and the stock was 4 assessed only on estimation instead of actual weighment, which led to an apparent discrepancy. It is also submitted that the allegation against the applicant pertains solely to an alleged violation of the provisions of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, for which the statutory remedy and penal consequences are provided under Clause 16(5) read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. However, instead of proceeding under the special enactment governing the field, the authorities have illegally registered an offence under Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which is wholly misconceived and unsustainable in law. 5. He further submits that the alleged loss to the State exchequer, quantified at Rs.5,51,112/-, has already been deposited/secured by the applicant and, therefore, no financial loss presently survives against the State. It is contended that despite these facts, the police registered the FIR without conducting a fair and proper inquiry and without considering the role of other office-bearers of the Samriddhi Self-Help Group, including its Executive Officer and other members, thereby singling out the applicant, who is merely the President of the Group. The circumstances clearly indicate that the present prosecution has been initiated with an ulterior motive and due to personal vendetta. It is also submitted that the applicant is a 55- year-old lady suffering from various age-related ailments, including hypertension and diabetes, and she has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed, he is in jail since 22.04.2026, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature. During the inspection conducted on 11.03.2026 at the Fair Price Shop operated by the applicant, a substantial shortage of food grains meant for distribution under the Public Distribution System was detected, including a shortage of 139.49 quintals of rice, resulting in a loss of Rs. 5,51,112/- to the State exchequer. It is submitted that the applicant, being the President of the Samriddhi Self-Help Group and the person responsible for the operation and management of the Fair Price Shop, cannot evade liability for the discrepancies found during inspection. The explanation furnished by the applicant regarding the shortage is a matter of trial and cannot be accepted at this stage. It is further submitted that a prima facie case is made out against the applicant and, considering the gravity of the allegations and the nature of the offence, she is not entitled to the benefit of bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the material available on record and the submissions advanced by the parties, further the fact that the alleged shortage pertains to the operation of a Fair Price Shop under the Public Distribution System and the prosecution case is primarily based on documentary and official records, which are already in the custody of the concerned authorities. It is also noteworthy that the applicant 6 had submitted a detailed reply to the show-cause notice explaining the circumstances leading to the alleged shortage and had expressed her willingness to make good any deficiency. Further, the amount alleged to have caused loss to the State exchequer has already been deposited/secured by the applicant, and therefore the alleged financial loss stands substantially safeguarded. The applicant is a 55-year-old woman and is stated to be suffering from ailments such as hypertension and diabetes, and also it is to be noted that the applicant is in jail since 22.04.2026, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, she has no previous criminal antecedents, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, without commenting upon the merits of the case and taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 9. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the applicant - Shobha Singh, involved in Crime No. 256/2026 registered at Police Station- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 316(5) of of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, 7 it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. 10. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal