1 CGHC010287372026 2026:CGHC:32097 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6744 of 2026 Naindas Joshi S/o Jugru Joshi Aged About 60 Years R/o Gram Ghatapani, P/s Lormi Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pandatarai, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Agnihotri, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.07.2026 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. 65/2026 registered at Police Station- Pandatarai, District - Kabirdham, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 4, 6, and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agriculture Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 and Section 11of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.05.2026, at about 2:00 PM, the complainant, Sukhchain Barve (Sarpanch), along with Panchram Patel (Deputy Sarpanch), Dinesh Yadav, Badri Nishad, Jhadu Patel, Sadhu Patel, Roop Singh and other villagers, intercepted a person near village Bhalpahari, who was allegedly taking five cattle from Bhalpahari towards Bodla while subjecting them to cruelty by beating them with a stick. Upon being questioned, the said person disclosed his name as Naindas Joshi, the present applicant, and stated that he was transporting the cattle on foot from Gondkhamhi via Pandatarai, Bhalpahari and Bodla towards Lalpur without providing them fodder or water. It is alleged that the applicant further disclosed that co-accused Dilip Banjare and Azad Shah had engaged him for transporting the cattle and had paid him ₹2,000/- as wages for delivering the cattle to Lalpur, from where they were allegedly to be taken to a slaughterhouse in the State of Madhya Pradesh. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, a First Information Report was registered against the applicant and the co-accused persons, and during the course of investigation, the present applicant and co-accused Azad Shah were arrested for the alleged commission of the offences in question. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the allegations levelled against the applicant are false, baseless and frivolous, and even if the entire prosecution story is taken at its face value, no prima facie case of the alleged 3 offences is made out against him. He also submits that the applicant was arrested along with co-accused Azad Shah and the cattle in question were seized by the authorities concerned; however, the applicant is a bona fide purchaser of the cattle and is in possession of valid purchase receipts evidencing lawful acquisition thereof. The said purchase receipts have been placed on record as Annexure A/3. It is contended that the prosecution has failed to collect any material demonstrating that the applicant was transporting the cattle for the purpose alleged in the FIR and, therefore, the ingredients of the offences alleged against him are not attracted. He further submits that the applicant and co-accused Azad Shah had preferred applications for regular bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, wherein the bail application of co-accused Azad Shah was allowed and he was enlarged on bail, whereas the bail application of the present applicant came to be rejected. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused person, namely, Dileep Banjare has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 09.07.2026 in MCRCA No. 841/2026. He also submits that the applicant has only one previous criminal antecedent which is pending and he is in jail since 12.05.2026, the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact 4 that co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, the fact that though the allegations against the applicant is that he was found transporting five cattle on foot without providing fodder and water and was allegedly taking them, at the instance of co-accused persons, towards Lalpur for further transportation to a slaughterhouse in the State of Madhya Pradesh, but it is also to be noted that the other co-accused person, namely, Dileep Banjare has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2026 in MCRCA No. 841/2026, and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused person, further the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, the present applicant has only one previous criminal antecedent which is pending and he is jail since 12.05.2026, the conclusion of the trial will take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant – Naindas Joshi, involved in Crime No. 65/2026 registered at Police Station- Pandatarai, District - Kabirdham, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 4, 6, and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agriculture Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 and Section 5 11of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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 he 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, 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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 him, 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 6 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 him in accordance with law. 8. 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 Rahul Dewangan