1 CGHC010295842026 2026:CGHC:34226 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.Cr.C(A) No.1262 of 2026 Balram Singh S/o Shri Ram Prasad Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Dangaura, P.S. And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, Police Station Manendragarh, District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2026 1. This 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.53/2026 registered at Police Station – SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.08.06 11:43:13 +0530 2 Manendragarh, District MCB (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 316(4) of BNS. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Vishnu Narayan Shukla lodged a report alleging that during the inspection of procurement, storage and supply of paddy to rice millers at Procurement Centre Kathautiya for the Kharif Marketing Season 2025–26, serious irregularities were detected. It is alleged that upon inquiry into the applications submitted by Goyal Rice Mill and Aksa Rice Mill regarding shortage in the weight of paddy supplied, irregularities at the procurement centre came to light. During spot inspection, old empty gunny bags were found to have been falsely shown as stock meant for procurement and on physical verification, excess empty gunny bags were found. It is alleged that by falsely showing procurement without actual purchase of paddy, fictitious entries were made in respect of 198.80 quintals of paddy valued at Rs.6,16,280/-. It is further alleged that the present Applicant, who was the In-charge of Procurement Centre Kathautiya, in furtherance of a well- planned conspiracy, dishonestly misappropriated and committed fraud in respect of a total of 398 quintals of paddy valued at the Minimum Support Price of Rs.12,33,800/-. Based on these allegations, the offence as mentioned above 3 has been registered against the present Applicant. Hence, this application. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the allegations arise out of alleged discrepancies in stock verification and weighing at the procurement centre, which are essentially departmental and administrative in nature and have been unnecessarily given a criminal colour. It is further submitted that the Applicant had taken charge of the procurement centre from the previous In- charge, Ganesh and considering the huge quantity of paddy stock, it was not practically possible to conduct 100% physical verification at the time of handing over charge, therefore, the Applicant cannot be held solely responsible for the alleged shortage. It is also submitted that the investigating agency has failed to conduct a fair and impartial investigation and that the Applicant has been made a scapegoat merely because he was the In-charge of the procurement centre at the relevant time, whereas no physical verification was carried out by the authorities at the time of handing over charge by the previous In-charge. It is lastly submitted and conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, the Applicant may be granted 4 anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the application and submits that the allegations against the Applicant involve misappropriation and fraud of approximately Rs.13,00,000/- and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by learned State Counsel, the grounds urged in the application, the material available in the case diary, the nature of allegations, the fact that the allegations primarily arise out of alleged irregularities in stock verification and maintenance of records at the procurement centre, the fact that the Applicant had taken charge from the previous In-charge and the plea that no complete physical verification was conducted at the time of handing over charge, the stage of investigation and 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. 6. 6. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the Applicant – Balram Singh, on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be 5 released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The Applicant/s shall 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/her/them from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The Applicant/s shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The Applicant/s shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him/her/them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d)The Applicant/s and the surety shall submit a copy of his/her/their adhaar card along with a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e)The Applicant/s shall not involve himself/herself/themselves in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Priya