1 / 4 CGHC010328892026 2026:CGHC:41293 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7959 of 2026 Manoj Kumar Panda Son Of Laxminarayan Panda Aged About 39 Years Resident Of Barpali Pada, Tahsil And District Balangir (Orissa) ... Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G. HON'BLE SHRI PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, JUDGE ORDER ON BOARD 22.09.2026 1. Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 172/2026 registered at Police Station – Pithora, District: Mahasamund (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 340 (2), 61 (2), 3(5) of BNS, under Section 42(1), 42(2)(ख)(घ) Section 52(1) of Indian Forest Act, 1927, and under Section 22 (1), 8, SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2026.09.23 18:09:31 +0530 2 / 4 13,14,17, 18 (1) (d), 18 (1) (£), 18 (1) (x), 18 (2) of Chhattisgarh Abhivahan (Vanopaj) Niyam, 2001. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 17.06.2026, during checking, vehicle bearing registration No. CG-07-CM-5860 was intercepted while allegedly transporting approximately 23,350 kilograms of Khair wood illegally. The driver of the vehicle produced NTPS NOC No. AP/KU/K/KU- 160 dated 14.06.2026, purportedly issued by the Forest Department, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, in support of the transportation. During investigation, the said NOC was verified through the concerned Forest Department, Kurnool, which, upon verification of the relevant departmental and revenue records, reported that the said NOC had not been issued by the Forest Department, Kurnool and was found to be forged, fabricated and unauthorized. It was further found that the particulars mentioned in the NOC regarding land ownership, survey number, source of forest produce, transportation route, validity period and other relevant details did not correspond with the official records and the source of the alleged Khair wood could not be established. Based on these allegations, the offences as mentioned above have been registered against the present Applicant. Hence, this application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He submits that the applicant has been arrested only on the basis of the memorandum statement of Gopi Prasad. He contends that no 3 / 4 seizure has been made from the applicant, though he was arrested on 04.08.2026. The trial may take some time; therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for the applicant and submits that there are seven criminal antecedents against the applicant, out of which one case is under Section 420 of the IPC. 5. Counsel for the applicant submits that, out of seven cases, the applicant has been acquitted in two cases, and one case has been settled between the applicant and the complainant before the Lok Adalat, while the other cases are still pending. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations, and further considering that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has enlarged the applicants, namely, Manish Agrawal and Himanshu Rathi, on anticipatory bail, and Prashant Kumar Bhoi on regular bail, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this bail application. 8. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that- 4 / 4 (a) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 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 him counsel. In case of him absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (c) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, 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 him in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Saurabh JUDGE