PRASHANT ASHOK MOHOD vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1


CGHC010403512026 2026:CGHC:47065
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1754 of 2026
Prashant Ashok Mohod S/o Ashok Mahod Aged About 44 Years R/o Plot No.
97, Phase-1, Amasivani Vidhan Sabha Road Safaygreen Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mandir
Hasaud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Amrito Das, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Yash Karan Singh, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
05.11.2026
1. Applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of Bhartiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail as he
apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 66/2015 registered
at Police Station- Mandir Hasaud District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence
punishable under Sections 420, 406,467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the
Indian Penal Code.

2
2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that in the year 2014-15 complainant
placed a purchase order on Agrasen Ispat Company for Lot No. 1 and
Lot No. 2 from 17.05.2014 to 12.01.2015. Lot No. 1 was for supply of
697.48 MT of iron bar and Lot no. 2 was 450 MT Iron bar. Agrasen Ispat
Company placed the said order with one M/s S R Steel Indian Ltd.,
Wardha Maharashtra, for purchase of the said iron bar. M/s S R Steel
India Ltd had an agreement with M/s Jai Bajrang Power & Ispat Ltd.
Situated at Raipur for manufacture of iron bar on behalf of S.R. Steel
India Ltd. The iron bars were manufactured by M/s Jai Bajrang Power
and Ispat Ltd. And after placing the trade mark of M/s Steel India Ltd,
the said iron bars were supplied to the complainant company through
the transporters including on Jai Durga Transporter and others
Transporters. The complainant did not have a weighing machine at its
destination were the iron bars had to be unloaded and therefore taking
advantage of the said fact, the accused persons after manipulating the
weight of the iron bars in the weighing receipts supplied 274.48 MT less
out of the total 1150 MT. Based upon the aforementioned facts, crime
was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant has been
falsely implicated in the crime. He has not committed any offence as
alleged. He further submits that applicant is in business of
transportation. He submits that the crime is of the year 2015, however,
since last about 11 years there is no interrogation of applicant by the
Police. Presently in the month of September, 2026 the Police
approached him and thereafter, anticipatory bail application was filed
before Court below. He also submits that according to his instructions

3
the trial against the co-accused persons are still pending even after the
lapse of more then ten years and is at the stage of examination of
prosecution. Referring to the copy of the complaint he submits that
allegation in the complaint is against the supplier, transporter and
owners of the persons running the business, however, applicant is in the
business of transportation but he was not engaged in transportation with
complainant during that period.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of
counsel for applicant and would submit that according to the allegation
applicant has manipulated weighing receipts and thereby there was
shortage of supply of iron bars. However he do not dispute the
submission made by learned counsel for the applicant that the crime is
of the year 2015and prior to September, 2026, there was no attempt
made to interrogate the applicant.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature of allegations as also the submission made by learned counsel
for the respective parties, without commenting anything on merits, I am
inclined to allow this anticipatory bail application.
7. Accordingly, application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of
arrest of applicant in connection with the crime in question, he shall be
released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting him on his
executing a personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety in the
like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting Officer. Applicant
shall also abide by the following conditions:

4
(i)that the applicant shall make himself available for
interrogation before the Investigation Officer as and when
required;
(ii)that 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/her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii)that the applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will
be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and
(iv)that 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.
8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Alfiza JUDGE