1 2026:CGHC:8135 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 249 of 2026 Santosh Khandelwal S/o Heeralal Khandelwal Aged About 58 Years Resident Of Ghutkela, Police Station Borai, Tehsil Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station Borai, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 13.02.2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this 1st anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.02.18 15:49:15 +0530 2 apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.02/2026, registered at Police Station – Borai, District Dhamtari (C.G.) for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 339 and 340 of BNS as also under Section 19(4) of Mandi Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Applicant is a licence holder of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, granted under Section 32(18)(7) of the Mandi Act and is engaged in trading agricultural produce. The Secretary of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Nagri, vide letter dated 17.01.2026, alleged that by tampering with the permit issued to the applicant, 5,441 quintals of paddy worth Rs.1,28,95,170/- was illegally transported, resulting in evasion of Mandi dues namely five times the market fee of Rs. 9,67,140/-, farmer welfare charge of Rs.3,22,380/-, and destitute fee of Rs.25,790/-. It was further alleged that the Applicant’s business transactions were not in the interest of the Mandi Samiti and were in violation of Section 33 of the Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Act, 1972, and an explanation was sought within seven days. In response, the Applicant stated that the permit had been downloaded from the official website and if any tampering was found, the same occurred due to ignorance, for which he expressed apology and also showed willingness to deposit 3 the requisite market fee. However, instead of proceeding in accordance with law, the Secretary lodged an FIR against the Applicant on 22.01.2026, alleging that during the period from 15.11.2025 to 04.01.2026 the Applicant deposited excess paddy in the Mandi, obtained payment therefor, and thereby cheated the authority. The A`pplicant thereafter applied for anticipatory bail before the Court below, which came to be rejected. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the Applicant is the proprietor of M/s Shivam Traders, duly registered with the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Nagri, for the period from 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2027, and all transactions were carried out within the valid permit period. It is further submitted that although a show cause notice dated 17.01.2026 was issued alleging illegal transportation of 5,441 quintals of paddy worth Rs. 1,28,95,170/- and evasion of Mandi dues, the Applicant duly replied on 23.01.2026 stating that the permit had been downloaded from the official website and that any discrepancy occurred due to ignorance, for which he expressed apology and also showed willingness to deposit the requisite market fee; however, instead of proceeding in 4 accordance with law, the FIR was lodged. He further submits that the entire transaction is duly reflected in the accounts of the trading firm and the Applicant is an income-tax payer. It is also contended that as per the Mandi portal, permit rectification is permissible within one year of issuance, indicating that any defect could have been administratively rectified. The Applicant has been consistently dealing with the Krishi Upaj Mandi without any prior complaint, and under the relevant provisions of the Chhattisgarh Krishi Upaj Mandi Act, any violation is punishable only with imposition of fine, which the Applicant is ready to deposit, demonstrating absence of any fraudulent intention. Lastly, it is submitted that the Applicant is a 58-year-old reputed businessman, the sole earning member of his family, and has no criminal antecedents except the present case, therefore, he may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the allegations against the Applicant are serious in nature, as they relate to tampering of permit records and illegal transportation of a large quantity of paddy, causing evasion of statutory Mandi dues. It is submitted that the material collected during investigation prima facie shows the involvement of the 5 Applicant and the act amounts to cheating of the concerned authority. Considering the gravity of the allegations and the stage of the case, it is prayed that the Applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail and therefore, the application may be rejected. 5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available in the case diary, this Court finds that the allegations against the Applicant relate to tampering with permit records and illegal transportation of a substantial quantity of paddy, resulting in evasion of statutory Mandi dues. The material collected during investigation prima facie indicates the involvement of the Applicant and the matter requires proper investigation. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and further considering that investigation is still going on and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the Applicant. 6. Accordingly, the bail application of the Applicant – Santosh Khandelwal, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Crime No.02/2026, registered at Police Station – Borai, District Dhamtari (C.G.) for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 6 338, 339 and 340 of BNS as also under Section 19(4) of Mandi Act, is hereby rejected. 7. 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