1 / 4 CGHC010302842026 2026:CGHC:39396 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7264 of 2026 Sandhya Chandel W/o- Jayant Singh Chandel Aged About 56 Years R/o- Ward No. 12, Near Geeta General Store, Aamapara, Durg, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) (Address Of The Applicant Is Wrongly Mentioned In The First Page Of Impugned Order) ... Applicant (s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Durg, District- Durg Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Mohan Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.) (Particulars Of Respondent Not Mentioned Properly In The Impugned Order) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. A.S. Rajput, Advocate with Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 08/09/2026 1. Applicant has filed this bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as she has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 521 of 2026 registered at Police Station –Mohan Nagar, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) for commission of Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.09.10 11:37:03 +0530 2 / 4 offence punishable under Sections 3, 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 316 (2), 316 (4) of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that applicant was the President of "Jai Shakti Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh", which was operating Fair Price Shop. During a surprise inspection conducted on 07.12.2024, certain discrepancies were found between the online stock and the physical stock of essential commodities. Consequently, the fair price shop was suspended and it was merged with another shop and proceedings were initiated by the Food Officer, Durg. A show cause notice dated 13.02.2025 was issued to the applicant, but she failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation and did not effectively contest the proceedings. Thereafter, on the directions of the District Collector, the Food Inspector submitted a written report on 24.07.2026, on the basis of which FIR was registered against the applicant and she was arrested on 28.07.2026 for alleged commission of offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant is merely a President of Jai Sahkti Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh. She had no role in day-to-day management, distribution of essential commodities, maintenance of stock, preparation of records or operation of the said Fair Price Shop. There is no material to show that applicant had any dishonest intention or active participation in the alleged offence. He draws attention of this Court to the order dated 19.08.2026 passed in MCRCA No. 1360 of 2026 (filed along with covering memo) whereby the anticipatory bail application arising out of the same crime number, preferred by the co-accused, was allowed. Applicant is in custody since 3 / 4 28.07.2026, there is no criminal antecedent, trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, the application may be allowed and applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant. However, he does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is the President of Samiti and that anticipatory bail application of co-accused arising out of same crime number has been allowed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, investigation is complete, charge sheet has been filed, there is no criminal antecedent, applicant is a lady and further considering that one of the co-accused person has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No.1360 of 2026, without commenting anything on merit of the case , I am inclined to allow the application. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail on her furnishing a personal bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that:-. “(a) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that 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 4 / 4 Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (c) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant 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 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (d) 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 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 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. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen