Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 34605 (CHH)

DEEPAK AGRAWAL v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRCA/1443/2026 · 2026-09-01

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010335622026 2026:CGHC:38888 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No.1443 of 2026 Deepak Agrawal S/o Ramawatar Agrawal Aged About 37 Years R/o House No.431, Ward No.12, Sarsinwa, P.S.- Sarsinwa, Distt.- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S- Basna, Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.) .... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 02.09.2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.294/2026, registered at Police Station – Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 3 SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.09.03 10:58:34 +0530 2 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act as also under Sections 305(e) and 317(2) of BNS. 2. The prosecution case is that complainant Sunil Kumar Agrawal, a contractor engaged in construction work under the Jal Jeevan Mission at village Lalitpur, reported that 06 iron pipes and 01 iron gate valve, worth approximately Rs.90,000/-, installed at the water tank under construction, were found missing on 09.05.2026 and had allegedly been stolen by an unknown person. Accordingly, Crime was registered against an unknown person. During investigation, on the basis of secret information, co-accused Kishore Kumar was apprehended and his memorandum statement was recorded, wherein he allegedly disclosed that he, along with Tikeshwar @ Tikelal, Kishan Nishad, Jaykumar Yadav, Raju Yadav and Piyush Diwan, had committed the theft of the aforesaid iron pipes and valve and sold them to scrap dealers Ganpat Mirdha and Khagesh Mirdha of village Sagarpali. Pursuant thereto, 02 iron pipes and 01 iron valve, valued at approximately Rs.50,000/-, were recovered from the possession of Ganpat Mirdha and further investigation was carried out on the basis of the memorandum statement of Khagesh Mirdha regarding the remaining stolen iron pipes allegedly sold by the accused persons. Based on these 3 allegations, the present FIR was registered against the Applicant for the offences punishable under the aforementioned Sections. Hence, this application. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the FIR was initially registered against an unknown person and the allegation against the present Applicant is only of purchasing the alleged stolen property under Section 317(2) of the BNS. It is submitted that the Applicant, being a scrap dealer, purchased the iron pipes and gate valve from co-accused Ganpat Mirdha and Khagesh Mirdha in the regular course of business, without knowledge that the same were stolen property. It is further submitted that there is no material to establish that the seized articles were Government property or that the Applicant had knowledge of the same being Government property. He further submits that all the co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the Court below vide orders dated 09.06.2026, wherein the compromise between the complainant and the co-accused persons has also been taken note of and therefore, the Applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail 4 application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the material available in the case diary and the nature of allegations, the fact that investigation is still going, without further commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Applicant. 7. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail application of the Applicant – Deepak Agrawal, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Crime No.294/2026, registered at Police Station – Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act as also under Sections 305(e) and 317(2) of BNS is hereby rejected. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Priya