1 CGHC010291642026 2026:CGHC:32898 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6872 of 2026 1. Girish Pandey S/o Rewaram Pandey Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bindravan, PS And Tehsil Komakhan, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2. Yogesh Kumar Pandey S/o Girish Pandey Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Bindravan, PS And Tehsil Komakhan, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State. : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 58/2026 registered at Police Station – Komakhan, District – Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS). 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the FIR was lodged on the allegation ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.31 11:11:32 +0530 2 that the applicants purchased Rabi crops from several villagers on 18.05.2026 but failed to make payment amounting to RS. 2 crores. Consequently, the villagers lodged a complaint, on the basis of which the present FIR came to be registered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the essential ingredients of Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case so far as the applicants are concerned. He further submits that the applicants have no connection whatsoever with the alleged forgery and have been implicated without any basis. According to him, the conduct of the prosecution is suspicious and contrary to the principles of fairness. Learned counsel further submits that the complainants themselves, in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., have admitted that part payment had already been made and that only the remaining amount, which was allegedly promised, had not been paid. He submits that no agreement of any nature was ever executed between the applicants and the villagers. It is further submitted that the entire agreed sale consideration payable to the villagers from whom the applicants had purchased the Rabi crops has already been paid, which is also evident from the statements of certain villagers recorded during the course of investigation. He further submits that certain villagers, in connivance with politically influential persons, are now attempting to exert undue pressure upon the applicants and their family members by falsely alleging non-payment of the sale consideration. It is also submitted that the names of certain new farmers have subsequently been introduced, who are now claiming that they did not receive any payment. Learned counsel submits that the State of 3 Chhattisgarh procures paddy from farmers at the prescribed Minimum Support Price under the prevailing procurement policy. In such circumstances, it is highly improbable that the farmers would voluntarily sell their crops outside the Government procurement system at a substantially lower price. He submits that the entire prosecution story has been fabricated with an ulterior motive and that certain rice millers, who are inimically disposed towards the applicants, have conspired to falsely implicate them in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that no written agreement was ever executed between the applicants and the villagers, and that the sale price was mutually settled with the free consent of all the concerned villagers. It is also submitted that though the alleged transaction took place on 18.05.2025, the FIR came to be registered only on 01.05.2026 after an unexplained delay of nearly one year, which creates serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case. He further submits that applicant No. 1 has 03 criminal antecedents under the IPC and the Essential Commodities Act. Out of the said cases, he has already been acquitted in 02 cases, while only 01 case is still pending. It is further submitted that applicant No. 2 has only 01 criminal antecedent under the IPC, in which he has also been acquitted. The explanations in respect of the aforesaid criminal antecedents have already been furnished in Paragraph 4(a) of the present bail application. It is further submitted that the applicants have been in judicial custody since 01.05.2026 and 22.06.2026 respectively, as the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, they deserve to be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and further considering that applicant No. 1 has 03 criminal antecedents under the IPC and the Essential Commodities Act, out of which he has already been acquitted in 02 cases and only 01 case is still pending, while applicant No. 2 has only 01 criminal antecedent under the IPC, in which he has also been acquitted, the explanations in respect of the aforesaid criminal antecedents having already been furnished in Paragraph 4(a) of the present bail application, further considering that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, the applicants have been in judicial custody since 01.05.2026 and 22.06.2026, respectively, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicants deserve to be enlarged on regular bail. 7. Let the Applicants – Girish Pandey and Yogesh Kumar Pandey , involved in Crime No. 58/2026 registered at Police Station – Komakhan, District – Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their 5 counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek