1 CGHC010342342026 2026:CGHC:39746 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1457 of 2026 1 - Vivek Sharma S/o. Late Shri Purushottam Sharma, Aged About 57 Years R/o Sahara Pada, Ward No. 5, Bargarh, District Bargarh, Odisha. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund, C.G. --- Respondent (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Applicant : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 10/09/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.172 of 2026 registered at Police Station Pithora, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) under Sections 318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 340 (2), 61 (2) and 3 (5) of BNS. BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 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 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. Hence this application. 3. Learned counsel for applicants would submit that applicant is an Advocate and after coming to his knowledge that one person Sanjay Chhabariya has made wrong statement before the police that he has kept some, money, accounts detail, property documents, applicant is apprehending that he may also be implicated as accused. Applicant is an Advocate by profession he is also suffering with Cancer disease 3 and documents in this regard has also been enclosed as Annexure A- 4, hence, applicant may be extended benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for applicant and would submit that till now there is no mention of the name of the applicant as accused, therefore, this bail application is premature. State counsel also submits that there is seizure of sum of Rs.4,32,900/-, laptop, mobile, some documents and files etc. The file which is seized was in the name of Sanjay Chhabariya. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is an Advocate, therefore, availability of laptop and file in his office cannot be a suspicious circumstances. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. The Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, while answering the reference concerning the grant of anticipatory bail, has observed as under:— “92.1. Consistent with the judgment in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465], when a person complains of apprehension of arrest and approaches for order, the application should be based on concrete facts (and not vague or general allegations) relatable to one or other specific offence. The application seeking anticipatory bail should contain bare essential facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends arrest, as well as his side of the story. These are essential for the court which should consider his application, to evaluate the threat or 4 apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the appropriateness of any condition that may have to be imposed. It is not essential that an application should be moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier, so long as the facts are clear and there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest.” 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for respective parties and further considering the above quoted decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. 9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail his executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. The applicant shall also abide by the following conditions : (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and 5 (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram