1 2026:CGHC:16449 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 518 of 2026 Amol Chand S/o Ramkarn Aged About 34 Years Caste Raidas R/o Village Ratga, P.S. Marwahi , District- Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station Incharge P.S. Marwahi , District- Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09/04/2026 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime MADHURIMA THAKUR Digitally signed by MADHURIMA THAKUR Date: 2026.04.10 15:52:28 +0530 2 No. 125/2025 registered at Police Station – Marwahi, District- Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 4, 6, 10 of C.G. Krishi Pashu Parirakshan Adhiniyam, 2004 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Section 61(2), 112 of BNS, 2023. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.07.2025, on the basis of a secret information, the police reached near Bartola, Ratga, where five persons were allegedly found driving cattle on foot through forest routes towards another State for slaughter. On seeing the police, four persons allegedly fled from the spot taking advantage of the forest and rainfall, while one co-accused was apprehended. During investigation, on the basis of memorandum statements of co-accused persons, the present applicant has been implicated, alleging that he was also involved in transporting cattle for slaughter. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated solely on the basis of memorandum statements of co-accused persons, which have limited evidentiary value. It is contended that no recovery has been made from the present applicant and he was not apprehended from the spot. It is further submitted that all similarly placed co-accused persons have already been granted either regular bail or anticipatory bail by the competent courts, including the Hon’ble High Court, and the case of the present applicant stands on similar footing. It is also submitted that the applicant is a 3 permanent resident, has no criminal antecedents, and undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all conditions imposed by the Court. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application and submits that the applicant is a main accused and was absconding since the date of incident, and there is a likelihood of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses if he is granted anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the perusal of the case diary, it appears that the name of the present applicant has surfaced primarily on the basis of memorandum statements of co-accused persons, and no independent recovery has been effected from him. The prosecution has not placed on record any direct material showing the physical presence of the applicant at the spot at the time of seizure. So far as the contention regarding the applicant being absconding is concerned, the same is a matter of appreciation during trial, particularly when no specific overt act, apart from general allegations, has been substantiated at this stage. It is also significant that other co-accused persons, including those similarly placed, have already been granted bail/anticipatory bail by the competent courts. The principle of parity, therefore, is attracted in the present case, as no distinguishing material has been placed 4 on record to show that the role of the present applicant is graver than that of the co-accused who have been granted relief. 7. The implication of the applicant is primarily based on memorandum statements of co-accused. No recovery has been made from the applicant. Co-accused persons have already been granted bail/anticipatory bail. The applicant is a permanent resident and there is no material to show likelihood of absconding, if protected by appropriate conditions. 8. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, considering the fact that the investigation and trial are likely to take time, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 9. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Amol Chand, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) 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 fact to the Court. (b) The applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. 5 (c) 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. (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) The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Madhurima