-1- CGHC010359772026 2026:CGHC:40717 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1531 of 2026 Harishankar Sahu S/o Shri Ghasiram Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Dr. Rohit Mishra Hospital, House No. 2152, Fafadih, Raipur, Tah. And Dist. - Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant (s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O., P.S. - Telibandha, Dist. - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Akash Agrawal, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Govt. Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 17/09/2026 1. Applicant has filed this application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of anticipatory bail as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.265 of 2026 registered at Police Station- Telibandha, District- Raipur CG) for offence punishable under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.09.18 14:38:27 +0530 -2- Section 318 (4) of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant -Sarita Agrawal, lodged a written complaint stating that she is posted as a Food Inspector at Raipur and is in charge of Raipur Urban Zone No. 09. On 28.11.2025, when she conducted an inspection of the Government Fair Price Shop registered in the name and style of Mahamaya Food Security Nutrition and Customer Service Cooperative Society Limited, Raipur, discrepancies were found in the stock maintained at the said Fair Price Shop, and a shortage of 389.24 quintals of rice was detected. Thereafter, notices were issued to the President of the Society as well as to the Salesman, namely, Topeshwar Sahu, calling upon them to explain the said shortage. However, their replies were found to be unsatisfactory. Consequently, a letter was issued to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) for recovery of the amount corresponding to the shortage. On the basis of the complaint, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur registered aforementioned crime against the vendor/Salesman Topeshwar Sahu. During course of investigation, the offence was also registered against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime. He is not an employee of Fair Price Shop from where the Food Inspector upon inspecting the Fair Price Shop found shortage of 389.24 quintal of rice. He contended that main accused is Topeshwar Sahu who was -3- arrested and in his memorandum statement, applicant has been named. There is no criminal antecedent of applicant except for one which is also arising out of the same inspection proceedings. Therefore, the applicant may be extended benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission of learned counsel for the applicant. He submits that a team of persons including Food Inspector had inspected the Fair Price Shop namely Mahamaya Khadya Suraksha Poshan avam Upbhokta Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Raipur and found shortage of rice of about 389.24 quintal . Statement of beneficiaries present on the spot were also recorded and based on complaint made by Food Inspector, FIR was registered. Upon putting a query as to whether Food Inspector has recorded statement of applicant also during course of investigation, she submits that no such document is available. She also submits that name of applicant has come in the memorandum statement of Topeshwar Sahu who is president of said Sahkari Samiti. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow the present application. -4- 7. Accordingly, application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting officer. Applicant shall also abide by the following conditions :- “(i) that the applicant shall remain available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; Certified copy as per rules. Sd/---/---/-/---/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen