1 CGHC010316722026 2026:CGHC:36334 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No.7532 of 2026 Prashant Kumar Bhoi S/o Late Shri Surendra Kumar Bhoi Aged About 57 Years R/o Lohrachatti, Police Station Sohela, District- Bargarh (Odisha) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant _____________________________________________________ For Applicant :Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State :Mr. SS Baghel, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this 1st Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.08.14 19:14:11 +0530 2 connection with Crime No.172/2026 registered at Police Station – Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of BNS as also under Sections 42(1), 42(2)(ख)(घ) and Section 52(1) of Indian Forest Act, 1927. 2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, on 17.06.2026, during vehicle checking, vehicle bearing registration No. CG-07-CM- 5860 was intercepted while allegedly transporting approximately 23,350 kilograms of Khair wood illegally. The driver, Vijay S/o Hinga Sisodia, produced NTPS NOC No. AP/KU/K/KU-160 dated 14.06.2026 in support of the transportation. During investigation, the said NOC was verified with the Forest Department, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh and the Divisional Forest Officer, Kurnool, vide report dated 25.06.2026, confirmed that the said NOC had not been issued by the Kurnool Forest Department and was found to be forged, fabricated and unauthorised. Verification further revealed that the land ownership, survey number, source of forest produce, transportation route, validity period and other particulars mentioned in the NOC did not tally with the official and revenue records, no Khair trees were found to have been felled from the land mentioned therein, nor was the person named in the NOC found to have any established connection 3 with the said land. The Khair wood was also allegedly misrepresented as minor forest produce and false particulars regarding its source were furnished. Based on these allegations, the offences as mentioned above have been registered against the present Applicant. Hence this application. 3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent, has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has neither been named in the FIR nor implicated by any co-accused in their memorandum statements. It is further submitted that neither the Applicant's vehicle nor his driver was present at the spot and no vehicle belonging to the Applicant was used in the alleged transportation of Khair wood. He further submits that the Applicant has been implicated merely on the basis of CDRs showing communication with co-accused Manish Agrawal, whereas the Applicant, being a transporter owning four trucks, used to remain in contact with him in the ordinary course of his transportation business. It is further submitted that there is no direct or corroborative evidence connecting the Applicant with the alleged illegal transportation, he has no previous criminal antecedents and is aged about 57 years. He further submits that the Applicant is in custody since 4 03.08.2026, charge-sheet has not yet been filed and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, he may be released on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has not yet been filed and the Applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the material available in the case diary, the fact that the Applicant has neither been named in the FIR nor implicated by any co-accused, the fact that neither his vehicle nor driver was found at the spot, his implication being based primarily on CDRs showing communication with the co- accused, the period of custody since 03.08.2026, the charge- sheet has not yet been filed and he has no previous criminal antecedents, without further commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow the application. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let Applicant- Prashant Kumar Bhoi involved in Crime No. 172/2026 registered at Police Station – Pithora, District 5 Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of BNS as also under Sections 42(1), 42(2)(ख)(घ) and Section 52(1) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 be released on bail on his furnishing a 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/she 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/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her 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/her 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/her, 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 of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the 6 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/her 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 Priya