1 CGHC010313912026 2026:CGHC:35980 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7461 of 2026 Ajay Yadav Son Of Ramfal Yadav Aged About 49 Years Resident Of B- 70 Phase-2, Rajkishore Nagar, Mopka, Police Station-Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station, Singhoda, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Sr. Adv along with Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.08.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 42/2026, registered at Police Station Singhoda, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Sections 316(3), 316(5), 61, 238, 336(3), 338, 340(2) of the BNS and Sections 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, K. Subramanium, Proprietor of Evergreen Trailer Service Transport Company, lodged a report at Police Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund, alleging that his company was engaged in transportation and supply of LPG Gas pursuant to a tender obtained from I.O.C.L., Siltara, Raipur. It is alleged that on 24.12.2025, three LPG capsule trucks bearing registration Nos. CG-CX-7245, CG-07-CX-7244 and CG-07-CS-1663 were seized by Police Station Singhoda in connection with Crime No. 96/2026 for offences punishable under Sections 305(e), 287, 3(5) and 351(2) of the BNS and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. For safety purposes and to avoid any untoward incident, the seized LPG capsule trucks were handed over by the Food Officer, Saraipali, to Thakur Petro Chemicals, Urla, Abhanpur, District Raipur. It is further alleged that after obtaining an order of interim custody (Supurdnama) from the competent Court, the Manager of the complainant’s company, namely, Bhupendra Kumar Sahu, went to Thakur Petro Chemicals to take custody of the said vehicles and found that the ball boxes had been broken and the LPG gas contained therein was empty. On the basis of the said allegation, the complainant alleged that the Proprietor/Director of Thakur Petro Chemicals, namely Santosh Singh Thakur, along with other employees, had dishonestly 3 removed/stolen the LPG gas from the seized capsule trucks. On the basis of the said report, FIR No. 42/2026 was registered at Police Station Singhoda against Santosh Singh Thakur and other co-accused persons for the alleged offences. 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 name of the applicant does not find mention in the FIR and there is no specific allegation against him, and his implication is based only upon the memorandum of the main accused. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed citing 94 prosecution witnesses and, therefore, the trial is likely to take considerable time. The applicant is in custody since 08.05.2026. It is contended that the seized LPG capsule trucks were handed over on supurdnama pursuant to official proceedings to Santosh Singh Thakur, whereas the applicant was never entrusted with their custody, possession or management. It is further argued that at the time of handing over the vehicles, no scientific measurement or weighment of the LPG was conducted and no inventory recording the exact quantity of LPG was prepared, and therefore there was no baseline quantity on the basis of which the alleged shortage of LPG valued at about Rs.77,00,000/- could have been determined. It is thus submitted that the applicant had no role in the custody or alleged misappropriation of LPG and the prosecution has failed to place any direct material connecting him with the alleged offence. 4 Learned counsel further submits that co-accused namely Manish Kumar Choudhary has already been released on bail vide order dated 11.08.2026 in MCRC No. 7345/2026 by this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused, hence he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature. It is contended that the applicant has been implicated in connection with the alleged theft/misappropriation of LPG gas from the seized capsule trucks, resulting in a substantial financial loss. Learned State counsel further submits that the investigation has disclosed the involvement of the applicant along with other co-accused persons and that the material collected during investigation, including the memorandum of the co-accused and other documents forming part of the charge-sheet, prima facie connects the applicant with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the release of the co-accused on bail does not automatically entitle the applicant to parity, as the role and circumstances of each accused are required to be considered independently. Learned State counsel therefore prays for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 5 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant is in custody since 08.05.2026, the trial is likely to take considerable time as 94 prosecution witnesses have been cited, and further considering that the name of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR and there is no specific allegation that he was entrusted with the custody or possession of the seized LPG capsule trucks, coupled with the fact that the co-accused namely Manish Kumar Choudhary has already been released on bail vide order dated 11.08.2026 in MCRC No. 7345/2026 by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 7. Let applicant, Ajay Yadav involved in Crime No. 42/2026, registered at Police Station- Singhoda, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(3), 316(5), 61, 238, 336(3), 338, 340(2) of the BNS and Sections 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, be released on bail on his 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 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 6 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 their 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 applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Section 209 of 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 applicants are deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such 7 default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them 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 Kunal