SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 16038

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
MCRCA/731/2026



##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:22307

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MCRCA No. 731 of 2026

Sandeep Kumar Dubey S/o Ramsharan Dubey Aged About 42 Years

Resident Of Ward No.06 Mohlain Tahsil Nawagarh District- Bemetara

(C.G.)

... Applicant

versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House OfÏcer, Police Of

Police Station Pathariya District- Mungeli (C.G.)

... Non-applicant

For Applicant : Mr. Ramsajiwan, Advocate.

For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Deputy G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

Order on Board

12.05.2026

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. 87/2026 registered at Police Station Pathariya District- Mungeli,

(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5) and

3(5) fo the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. As per the prosecution’s case, in brief is that during inspection

conducted by the enquiry team at Paddy Purchase Centre, Dhardei,

a shortage/misappropriation of 2156.08 quintals of paddy was

RAHUL

DEWANGAN

Digitally

signed by

RAHUL

DEWANGAN

##PAGE2##

2

found, and on the basis of the said report, the present crime has

been registered against the applicant, who is stated to be working

as a computer operator, along with other co-accused persons.

Hence, the present anticipatory bail application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is

innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is

further submitted that the applicant has neither committed nor

participated in any act which may constitute the alleged offences.

He further submits that the evidence collected by the prosecution

does not prima facie make out a sufÏcient case to hold the applicant

guilty of the alleged offences. It is also submitted that the applicant

is working as a computer operator at Paddy Purchase Centre,

Dhardei and has nothing to do with the alleged

shortage/misappropriation of paddy. It is further submitted that the

applicant is neither the custodian nor the in-charge of the paddy

stock and his role is limited only to operating the computer at the

said centre on the instructions of superior authorities. He also

submits that the co-accused namely Kartik Ram Dhruv, who is

posted as Society Manager, has already deposited the entire

shortage of paddy at the Paddy Purchase Centre, Dhardei, which

clearly indicates that the applicant has no role in the alleged

shortage. The statement of Kartik Ram Dhruv and the report of

deposit of paddy are collectively annexed as Annexure A-3. It is

also submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal

antecedents. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be granted

anticipatory bail.

##PAGE3##

3

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, appearing for the non -

applicant/State, opposes the submission made by the learned

counsel for the applicant and submits that the present case pertains

to serious misappropriation of Government paddy to the extent of

2156.08 quintals, detected during inspection of Paddy Purchase

Centre, Dhardei, which reflects large-scale irregularities affecting

public funds. It is further submitted that the investigation has

revealed the involvement of the applicant along with other co-

accused persons in the said shortage and merely being designated

as a computer operator does not absolve him from responsibility, as

he was actively involved in maintaining records and entries relating

to procurement and stock of paddy. Therefore, looking to the gravity

of the offence, nature of allegations and requirement of proper

investigation, the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

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

diary.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of

allegations and the material available on record, it appears that the

present case arises out of an alleged shortage/misappropriation of

2156.08 quintals of paddy detected during inspection of P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top