1 CGHC010262762026 2026:CGHC:30462 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1063 of 2026 1 - Gangadas Manikpuri S/o Vishramdas Manikpuri Aged About 49 Years Occupation Society Manager, Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Sahaspur Lohara, Registration No. 1692, Branch Sahaspur Lohara, R/o Village Budhwara, P.S. Sahaspur Lohara, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Baldau Dadsena S/o Suresh Kumar Aged About 33 Years Occupation Paddy Puchase In Charge, Paddy Procurement Center, Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Sahaspur Lohara, R/o Sahaspur Lohara, Police Station And Tahsil Sahaspur Lohara, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Bihari Sahu S/o Jugal Sahu Aged About 32 Years Occupation Computer Operator, Paddy Procurement Center, Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Sahaspur Lohara, R/o Sahaspur Lohara, P.S. Sahaspur Lohara, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Sahaspur Lohara, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order On Board 17.07.2026 1. The applicants have preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest in connection RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 with Crime No. 79/2026, registered at Police Station Sahaspur Lohara, District- Kabirdham, (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.06.2026, Santosh Kumar Gandharv, Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Rajnandgaon, Branch Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.), lodged a written complaint before the Station House Officer, Police Station Sahaspur Lohara, alleging that a joint inspection conducted on 18.06.2026 by officials of the Food Department, Cooperation Department and District Cooperative Central Bank at the Sahaspur Lohara Paddy Procurement Centre revealed serious irregularities in the procurement and storage records. During inspection, it was found that the weighment slips contained only the signatures of the concerned farmers and did not bear the signatures of the Procurement In-charge, Centre In-charge or Weighers. It was further found that although the Society Module reflected a closing stock of 823.58 quintals of paddy as on 18.06.2026, physical verification revealed no paddy stock at the procurement centre, resulting in an alleged shortage valued at Rs. 25,53,098/-. Similarly, against the balance of 12,075 empty gunny bags shown in the Society Module, physical verification revealed no such stock, resulting in an alleged shortage valued at Rs. 3,01,875/-. Thus, an alleged financial loss of Rs. 28,54,973/- was caused to the Government due to misappropriation of paddy and empty gunny bags. It is further alleged that no information regarding 3 the said shortages was furnished to the competent authorities and that the Society Manager-cum-Paddy Procurement In-charge, Gangadas Manikpuri, the Centre (Fad) In-charge, Baldau Dansena, and the then Computer Operator, Bihari Sahu, violated the provisions of the Paddy Procurement Policy, 2025-26 and the Government guidelines, thereby committing criminal breach of trust, cheating and misappropriation. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, Police Station Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham, registered FIR bearing Crime No. 79/2026 for offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 316(5) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the present applicants and commenced investigation, which is still in progress and the charge-sheet has not yet been filed. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the allegations of misappropriation are based upon a mere comparison between the stock reflected in the Society Module and the stock physically found during inspection, without taking into consideration the provisions of the Paddy Procurement Policy, 2025-26 and the actual circumstances under which the paddy was stored and transported. Learned counsel submits that as per the procurement policy, the paddy purchased at the procurement centres was required to be lifted and transported within 72 hours, however, due to the negligence of the Marketing Federation and transport agencies, the paddy remained stored in the open for several months after procurement. It is argued that 4 during the procurement period from 15.11.2025 to 06.02.2026, a substantial quantity of paddy was procured at the centre, but its transportation was considerably delayed, resulting in natural reduction of moisture content, shrinkage in weight, and damage caused by rats and pests. According to learned counsel, the alleged shortage of paddy is less than one percent of the total quantity procured and is attributable to such natural causes rather than any dishonest act or misappropriation on the part of the applicants. It is further submitted that the authorities themselves recognize weight loss in paddy due to reduction of moisture and provide permissible margins in this regard, but the same was not considered by the inspection team while preparing the report. 4. It is further submitted that Applicant No.1 was working as the Society Manager and was also holding additional charge of another cooperative society, Applicant No.2 was the Centre In-charge and Applicant No.3 was the Computer Operator at the procurement centre. Learned counsel contends that all procurement activities were carried out in accordance with official procedures and that the entire quantity of paddy procured was ultimately lifted and received by storage centres and millers. It is argued that there is no allegation or material to show that any of the applicants personally appropriated, sold, removed or derived any unlawful benefit from the alleged shortage of paddy or empty gunny bags. The prosecution case rests entirely on assumptions and presumptions arising from physical verification conducted several months after the procurement season had ended, without accounting for scientifically 5 recognized factors such as moisture loss and natural shrinkage. Therefore, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, particularly those relating to criminal breach of trust, cheating and misappropriation, are conspicuously absent. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the relationship between the Society, the Marketing Federation and the concerned authorities is governed by contractual arrangements and the Paddy Procurement Policy, which specifically provide a mechanism for recovery of any deficit or shortage through adjustment of commission and, if necessary, through proceedings under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. It is argued that the dispute, if any, is essentially contractual and civil in nature and has wrongly been given a criminal colour. Learned counsel also submits that the entire case is based on documentary evidence such as stock registers, weighment slips, online portal records and contractual documents, all of which are already in the custody of the investigating agency, and therefore custodial interrogation of the applicants is not required. The applicants have no criminal antecedents, are permanent residents of the locality, have deep roots in society, are the sole breadwinners of their respective families and have cooperated with the investigation. It is thus submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicants. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the allegations 6 against the applicants are serious in nature and relate to the misappropriation of a substantial quantity of paddy and empty gunny bags, resulting in an alleged financial loss of Rs. 28,54,973/- to the Government. It is contended that during the joint inspection conducted by the competent authorities, significant discrepancies were found between the stock reflected in the official records and the stock physically available at the procurement centre, and the applicants, being the Society Manager-cum-Procurement In-charge, Centre In-charge and Computer Operator respectively, were directly responsible for maintaining and accounting for the stock. Learned State counsel further submits that the plea of natural shrinkage, moisture loss and delay in transportation are matters of defence, which can be examined only during the course of investigation and trial, and do not absolve the applicants of their responsibility at this stage. It is also submitted that the investigation is still in progress, the charge-sheet has not yet been filed, and custodial interrogation may be necessary for a fair and effective investigation into the alleged financial irregularities and the role of each accused person. Learned State counsel further points out that Applicant No.1 has two previous criminal antecedents, which disentitles him from claiming discretionary relief and raises concerns regarding his conduct. In view of the gravity of the allegations, the magnitude of the financial loss caused to the public exchequer, the stage of investigation and the criminal antecedents of Applicant No.1, it is submitted that the anticipatory bail application of the applicants deserves to be rejected. 7 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the rival submissions and upon perusal of the case diary and material available on record, this Court finds that the allegations against the applicants pertain to the misappropriation of 823.58 quintals of paddy and 12,075 empty gunny bags, resulting in an alleged financial loss of Rs. 28,54,973/- to the Government. The discrepancies were detected during a joint inspection conducted by the competent authorities, wherein the stock reflected in the official records and Society Module was found to be substantially at variance with the stock physically available at the procurement centre. The applicants were posted as the Society Manager-cum- Procurement In-charge, Centre In-charge and Computer Operator respectively and were directly entrusted with duties relating to procurement, maintenance of records and management of stock. At this stage, the contention of the applicants that the shortage occurred due to natural shrinkage, reduction of moisture content, delay in transportation and damage caused by rats and pests involves disputed questions of fact, which require thorough investigation and cannot be conclusively adjudicated upon while considering an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The investigation is still in progress, the charge-sheet has not yet been filed, and the role of each applicant in the alleged shortage and financial irregularities is yet to be fully ascertained. Furthermore, Applicant No.1 is stated to have two previous criminal antecedents, which is also a relevant factor while 8 considering the grant of discretionary relief. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the magnitude of the alleged loss caused to the public exchequer, the specific responsibilities entrusted to the applicants in relation to the procurement centre, the stage of investigation and the criminal antecedents of Applicant No.1, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicants have failed to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. 9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants - Gangadas Manikpuri, Baldau Dadsena and Bihari Sahu, involved in Crime No. 79/2026, registered at Police Station Sahaspur Lohara, District- Kabirdham, (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Rahul Dewangan