2026:CGHC:7115 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 198 of 2026 • Devendra Ram S/o Late Sarju Ram Aged About 28 Years R/o Bagiya, Chowki- Dokda, Police Station- Kansabel, District- Jashpur, (C.G.)

... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Kansabel, District- Jashpur, (C.G.)

... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate.

For State/Non-applicant : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

09.02.2026

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. 7/2026 registered at Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(3), 61(2) of the BNS, 2023.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.01 2026 at about 12.45 noon, two tractors were intercepted while transporting 125 & 125 bags paddy in each tractors and the said paddy was being transported From Sujibahar to Bagiya. The accused Devendra Ram admitted that the paddy was loaded in Vedansh Rice Mill for unloading the paddy in Paddy Procurement Center, Digitally signed by Chongibahar. On the basis of said admission, the joint team of Food, Revenue and MARKFED have conducted inspection in Vedansh Rice Mill, but the Proprietor of said Mill was not present in the Mill, therefore, the team was conducted inspection of paddy and rice and found that according to online report of purchase year 2024-25, total 26645 bags paddy was to be available in the Mill, but on inspection total 24379 bags paddy was available. On the basis of above report, the FIR has been registered against Yaman Behra, Maneshwar, Devendra Ram and Proprietor of Rice Mill namely Gendlal.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that applicant is working as per the instructions of and order of the proprietor of the said rice mill, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that the paddy, which was meant for custom milling was being sold again at the paddy centre, therefore, applicant was not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and nature of dispute and materials available on record, without further commenting anything on merits, this Court does not find it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant –

Devendra Ram, involved in Crime No. 7/2026 registered at Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(3), 61(2) of the BNS, 2023, is rejected.

Sd/-

(Ramesh Sinha)

Chief Justice

Deepti Jha