1 CGHC010292492026 2026:CGHC:32970 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1210 of 2026 Jeevan Lal Janghel S/o Late Shri Makhan Lal Janghel Aged About 36 Years Director- Kisan Mitra Swastik Organic Private Limited, R/o Village- Katalvahi, Post- Musra, P.S.- Dongargarh District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S.- Bodhghat, District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.07.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 282/2026 registered at Police Station – Bodhghat, District- Bastar (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.31 11:06:24 +0530 2 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Section 318(4) of the BNS. 2. As per the prosecution case, on the basis of a written complaint lodged by one Bhojram Nag, the present Crime No. 282/2026 dated 15.07.2026 was registered alleging that the complainant had purchased 17 bags of fertilizer from co-accused Manoj Kumar Bedarkar, believing the same to be D.A.P. fertilizer, at the rate of Rs.1,650/- per bag for a total consideration of Rs,28,050/-. It is alleged that upon inspection, the bags were found to contain Bio PROM fertilizer instead of D.A.P. fertilizer. The prosecution further alleges that the said Bio PROM fertilizer had been manufactured by the present applicant, thereby implicating the applicant in the alleged offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is a young entrepreneur and Director of Kisan Mitra Swastik Organic Private Limited, a Government of India-recognized start-up duly incorporated under the Companies Act and also recognized by the Directorate of Industries, Government of Chhattisgarh, besides being an incubated unit under the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare and Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur. It is contended that the applicant had merely supplied 60 bags of Bio PROM to co- accused Manoj Kumar exclusively for trial, testing and use in his 3 nursery, in accordance with the applicable guidelines, and every bag as well as the invoices specifically disclosed that the contents were Bio PROM and were not meant for further sale. It is further submitted that the prosecution itself alleges that it was the co- accused who sold 17 bags to the complainant as D.A.P. fertilizer, and there is no allegation that the applicant sold the bags to the complainant or misrepresented their contents. Counsel further submits that the applicant has since been granted the requisite licence by the State Government, is ready to cooperate with the investigation, and that an identical FIR bearing Crime No. 283/2026 was subsequently cancelled by the police as having been registered due to a technical error. On these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant, without obtaining the requisite licence, manufactured and supplied Bio PROM fertilizer, which was subsequently sold to poor farmers in the guise of D.A.P. fertilizer. It is contended that although the applicant claims that 60 bags were supplied to the co-accused only for trial purposes, the question whether such a large quantity could legally be supplied for trials without a valid licence is a matter requiring thorough investigation. It is further submitted that the Bio PROM fertilizer allegedly misrepresented as D.A.P. was manufactured by the applicant’s establishment and, therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and the stage 4 of investigation, the applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, prayer is made for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents taken on record. 6. Considering the nature of the allegations, the material available in the case diary, the fact that the prosecution case itself alleges that the sale of 17 bags to the complainant was made by the co- accused, the applicant’s contention that the Bio PROM bags were supplied only for trial purposes with proper labeling and invoices, the absence of any material at this stage to show that the applicant directly sold or misrepresented the product to the complainant, the fact that the investigation is still in progress, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Jeevan Lal Janghel, on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) He should not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. 5 (b) He should not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) They should appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The Applicant and the sureties shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) He should not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Vaibhav