1 2026:CGHC:2483 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 85 of 2026 Umesh Sao S/o Late Lakhan Sao, Aged About 53 Years R/o Durga, Nagar, Ward No. 3, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, (S.H.O.) Police Station Vidhansabha, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ravi Kumar Kashyap, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.01.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 492/2025 registered at Police Station – Vidhansabha, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 287, 111 of the BNS and 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 01.10.2025 at about 21:35 hours, the police received secret information that certain persons had VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.16 12:05:19 +0530 2 illegally stored flammable liquids, namely petrol and diesel, for sale in the yard of the present applicant, Umesh Sao, near Tekari Chowk; acting on the said information, the police conducted a raid at the spot and arrested some co-accused persons, during which a total of about 15,300 litres of petrol and 31,000 litres of diesel were seized from three vehicles and several drums, leading to the registration of an FIR against the accused persons under Sections 287 and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, on the allegation that the premises belonging to the present applicant were being used for illegal storage and sale of the said petroleum products. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits as the applicant name has been introduced solely on the bald allegation that the yard allegedly belongs to him, whereas no documentary evidence such as land ownership records, lease deed, tenancy documents, or revenue records has been collected or placed on record by the prosecution to establish that the said yard is owned, possessed, or controlled by him; in fact, the applicant had given the yard on monthly rent to vehicle owners namely Sunil Kumar Baid (vehicle No. CG10AF0113), Quanh Khalil (vehicle No. CG04PR7421) and Abhay Kumar Singh (vehicle No. CG04PT8504), yet none of the said vehicle owners has been made an accused in the present case; admittedly, the applicant was not apprehended at the spot and his alleged involvement is based only on the self-serving statements of police witnesses, there being no independent witness to prove his presence or any role in the alleged storage of inflammable substances; further, the co-accused namely Ravi Yadav, Neeraj Netam, Kalimuddin, Ranjit @ Raj Patel and Shailendra @ Bihari have already been granted bail by this 3 Hon’ble High Court; the applicant is also a heart patient undergoing treatment at SMC Heart Institute and IVF Research Center, Raipur, and his medical records show about 12% blockage in his heart; the applicant has been deliberately victimized and falsely implicated in a planned manner, and since the trial is likely to take considerable time, it would not be just and proper to keep him languishing in jail; the applicant is a law-abiding citizen with deep roots in society, is not of a threatening nature, undertakes not to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses, is ready to cooperate with the prosecution, and is willing to furnish adequate security and abide by all conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting him the benefit of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute and the material available on record, and in view of the fact that the similarly situated co-accused namely Ravi Yadav, Neeraj Netam, Kalimuddin, Ranjit @ Raj Patel and Shailendra @ Bihari have already been granted bail by this Hon’ble High Court MCRCA No. 8867 of 2025 vide order dated 02.12.2026, this Court finds that the present applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity. Therefore, without making any further comment on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Umesh Sao, on executing a personal 4 bond and one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) he 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 fact to the Court. (b) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav