Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 91
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Mr. Ramesh Sinha, CJ
SMT. POOJA BIJAUR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
MCRCA/20/2025
Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate; Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate
Court emphasized the necessity of fair inquiry and procedures in legal complaints, especially when personal disputes influence allegations.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 316(5), 318(4) and 3(5) - Essential Commodities Act - Section 7 - Anticipatory bail application filed by applicants apprehending arrest for alleged shortage of commodities in fair price shop - Allegations stem from a family dispute involving the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat - Court finds merit in the argument that applicants are falsely implicated due to personal conflicts. (Paras 1, 3, 6)
Facts of the case:
The applicants, operators of a fair price shop, faced allegations of commodity shortages based on an inspection report prepared without their presence, leading to a police FIR amidst claims of a family dispute with the Sarpanch.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail, noting the absence of a fair inquiry and the influence of personal disputes on the allegations.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the applicants were falsely implicated due to family disputes, affecting the legitimacy of the allegations against them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for fair procedures in lodging complaints and the importance of not allowing personal disputes to taint legal proceedings.
Result: Anticipatory bail granted to the applicants under specified conditions.
Order on Board
13.01.2025
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 No. 1057/2024 registered at Police Station – Kota, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5) , 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 ( BNS ) and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act .
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 04.11.2024, complainant Shyam Bastrakar working on the post of Food Inspector Takhatpur, came in the fair price shop of Village Panchayat - Ganiyari and after breaking the lock of the fair price shop Ganiyari and prepared the inspection report about shortage of 443.92 quintal Rice, 2.34 quintal Salt and 9.24 quintal Sugar in the faire price shop of applicant and the inspection report was behind the back of applicants and salesman of the shop and submitted the report before the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) Takhatpur on 05.11.2024, on the basis of inspection report, Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) issued the show cause notice to the applicants and salesman of the fair price shop Ganiyari on 06.11.2024, after receiving of the notice, applicants filed the detail reply of the show cause notice and submitted that the concerned food inspector, prepared the inspection report after breaking the lock of the faire price shop which is behind the back of operator of the shop and shortage was interred in online server without physical verification of the shop of applicants but the learned Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) Takhatpur without considering the reply filed by the applicants and without conducting any enquiry as Clause 16(3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution and Control order 2016 and without giving any opportunity of hearing, he has directed to lodge the F.I.R. against the operator of the Fair Price Shop Ganiyari and on the basis of order dated 27.11.2024, complainant/Food Inspector- Takhatpur, lodge the report before the police station Kota against the applicants and salesman of the Fair Price Shop Ganiyari on dated 04.12.2024. On the basis of report, police registered the alleged ofÏces against the present applicant and one other accused person. Hence, this application.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that there is a family dispute between applicants and Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat – Ganiyari and on the basis of family dispute, Sarpanch of Village Panchayt- Ganiyari and he has tried to allotment of the shop of petitioner in his choice persons, made complain before the Collector about the shop of applicant on 06.11.2024. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicants are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in this case.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation leveled against the applicant, and from the perusal of the case diary it transpires that there is a family dispute between applicants and Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat – Ganiyari and on the basis of family dispute, Sarpanch of Village Panchayt- Ganiyari and he has tried to allotment of the shop of petitioner in his choice persons, made complain before the Collector about the shop of applicant on 06.11.2024, as such without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.
7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants – Smt. Pooja Bijaur and Smt. Kamini Suryavanshi on executing a personal bond with one surety in the lik
