1 CGHC010310792026 2026:CGHC:36703 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1316 of 2026 1 - Gangadas Manikpuri S/o Vishramdas Manikpuri Aged About 49 Years Occupation Society Manager, Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Sahaspur Lohara, Registration No. 1692 Branch Sahaspur Lohara, R/o Village Budhwara, Police Station Sahaspur, Lohara, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Baldau Dadsena S/o Suresh Kumar Aged About 33 Years Occupation Paddy Purchase In Charge Paddy Procurement Center Sewa Sahakari Samiti Sahaspur Lohara, R/o Sahaspur Lohara, Police Station And Tahsil Sahaspur Lohara, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 3 - Bihari Sahu S/o Jugal Sahu Aged About 32 Years Occupation Computer Operator Paddy Procurement Center Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Sahaspur Lohara R/o Sahaspur Lohara, Police Station Sahaspur Lohara, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O, Police Station Sahaspur Lohara, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate For Non-applicant : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy.G.A. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 17/08/2026 1. This is the second anticipatory bail application of the applicants. The first anticipatory bail application of the applicants has been dismissed SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.08.18 11:30:35 +0530 2 on merits by this Court vide order dated 17.07.2026 passed in MCRCA No.1063/2026. The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.79/2026 registered at Police Station – Sahaspur Lohara, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.06.2026, Santosh Kumar Gandharv, Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Rajnandgaon, Branch Sahaspur Lohara, District - Kabirdham (C.G.), lodged a written complaint before the Station House Officer, Police Station - Sahaspur Lohara, alleging that a joint inspection conducted on 18.06.2026 by officials of the Food Department, Cooperation Department and District Cooperative Central Bank at the Sahaspur Lohara Paddy Procurement Center revealed serious irregularities in the procurement and storage records. During inspection, it was found that the weighment slips contained only the signatures of the concerned farmers and did not bear the signatures of the Procurement In-charge, Center In-charge or Weighers. It was further found that although the Society Module reflected a closing stock of 823.58 quintals of paddy as on 18.06.2026, physical verification revealed no paddy stock at the procurement center, resulting in an alleged shortage valued at Rs.25,53,098/-. Similarly, against the balance of 12,075 empty gunny bags shown in the Society Module, physical verification revealed no such stock, resulting in an alleged shortage valued at Rs.3,01,875/-. Thus, an alleged financial loss of Rs. 28,54,973/- was caused to the Government due to misappropriation of paddy and empty gunny bags. 3 It is further alleged that no information regarding the said shortages was furnished to the competent authorities and that the Society Manager-cum-Paddy Procurement In-charge, Gangadas Manikpuri, the Center (Fad) In-charge, Baldau Dansena, and the then Computer Operator, Bihari Sahu, violated the provisions of the Paddy Procurement Policy, 2025-26 and the Government guidelines, thereby committing criminal breach of trust, cheating and misappropriation. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, Police Station - Sahaspur Lohara, District – Kabirdham, registered FIR bearing Crime No. 79/2026, 80/2026 and 81/2026 against the applicant No.1 Gangadas Manikpuri and 79/2026 against the applicant No.2 Baldau Dadsena and applicant No.3 Bihari Sahu for offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 316(5) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the present applicants and commenced investigation, which is still in progress and the charge-sheet has not yet been filed. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that on the same day, there are three Crime numbers registered at the same police station bearing Crime Nos. 79/2026, 80/2026 and 81/2026 for the offences under Sections 316(5), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He would further submit that so far as the applicant No.1 Gangadas Manikpuri is concerned, he is an accused in all the three crime numbers and applicant No.2 Baldau Dadsena and applicant No.3 Bihari Sahu are the accused in Crime No. 79/2026. The applicant No.1 Gangadas Manikpuri has been granted anticipatory bail by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Crime Nos. 80/2026 and 81/2026 vide 4 order dated 20.07.2026 and 22.07.2026, and therefore, the applicant No.1 Gangadas Manikpuri is also entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in the Crime No. 79/2026 as the allegation against him in all the three offences are similar. He would also submit that if the applicants are willing to surrender before the learned trial Court and in such eventuality the learned trial Court may be directed to decide their bail application on the same day. He would further submit that the applicants are employee of the Paddy Procurement Center and there is no offence committed by them with respect to the alleged offences, therefore, the applicants have filed this second anticipatory bail application. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that the first anticipatory bail application of the applicants has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 17.07.2026. Merely on of the accused Gangadas Manikpuri has been granted anticipatory bail in other crime number can not change the circumstances and he can not be released on anticipatory bail, looking to the gravity of the offence and the magnitude of the loss caused to the public exchequer and the responsibility entrusted to the applicants, therefore, their second anticipatory bail application is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the magnitude of the alleged offences and the responsibilities entrusted to the applicants in relation to the Procurement Center and also in view of the fact that the first 5 anticipatory bail application of the applicants has been rejected on merits vide order dated 17.07.2026 passed in MCRCA No. 1063/2026 which is arising out of the Crime No. 79/2026, I am not inclined to consider any change in circumstances. 7. Accordingly, the second anticipatory bail application of the applicants Gangadas Manikpur, Baldau Dadsena and Bihari Sahu is rejected. 8. However, if the applicants surrender before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court shall consider and decide the regular bail application of the applicants as early as possible preferably on the same day, if there is no legal impediment. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit