PRADEEP KUMAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010421492026 2026:CGHC:45868
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1798 of 2026
Pradeep Kumar S/o Rameshwar Prasad Aged About 39 Years R/o Near
Saraswati Sishu Mandir, Parvati Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Tahsil And Distt.
Raipur C.G. ... Applicant

versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Telibandha, Distt. Raipur, C.G.
...Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Prahalad Panda, Advocate.
For Respondent-State : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Dy. A.G. with Ms. Avleen
Juneja Gambhir, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
29/10/2026
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.
265/2026 registered at Police Station - Telibandha, District Raipur
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) & 3(5) of
the BNS and Section 3(7) of the essential Commodities Act, 1955.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Government Fair Price
Shop situated in Ward No. 51, Raipur, is operated by Mahamaya
Food Security, Nutrition and Consumer Service Cooperative

2
Society Limited, Raipur. The applicant, Pradeep Kumar, is the
President of the Society, while the co-accused, Harishankar Sahu,
acted as its operator/public vendor. During an inspection
conducted by Food Inspector Sarita Agarwal, Raipur, several
irregularities were found, including a shortage of 389.24 quintals of
rice valued at approximately Rs. 15,91,898. Notices were issued to
the applicant, the co-accused Harishankar Sahu and the society's
salesman, Topeshwar Sahu, seeking an explanation for the
shortage. However, their replies were found to be unsatisfactory.
On the complaint of the Food Inspector, the police registered an
FIR against Topeshwar Sahu. Subsequently, the names of the
present applicant, Pradeep Kumar, and co-accused Harishankar
Sahu were implicated in the case on the basis of the memorandum
statement of Topeshwar Sahu.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He
further submits that the applicant is the President of Mahamaya
Food Security, Nutrition and Consumer Service Cooperative
Society Limited, Raipur, which operates a fair price shop. During a
surprise inspection conducted by the Food Inspector, a shortage of
389.24 quintals of rice was detected, pursuant to which the FIR
was registered. He submits that the applicant is not directly
involved in the receipt, storage or distribution of the food grains to
ration card holders, as the same is handled by the co-accused,
Topeshwar Sahu, the salesman of the society. He further submits
that the co-accused, Harishankar Sahu, has already been granted
anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2026 passed

3
in MCRCA No. 1531 of 2026. Learned counsel contends that the
applicant's case stands on a better footing, as the allegations
regarding misappropriation of rice are primarily directed against
the co-accused, Harishankar Sahu, and the applicant has been
implicated on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-
accused, Topeshwar Sahu.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the application and submits that
the applicant is not the President of the Society; rather, he is the
holder of a special power of attorney executed by Omkar Pal, the
President of the Society, authorising him to run and manage the
fair price shop. In view of the aforesaid facts, the applicant was
managing the shop, and his involvement in the commission of the
alleged offence prima facie appears to be established. Upon being
specifically queried regarding the allegations made in the
memorandum statement of co-accused Topeshwar Sahu, the
salesman one of the fair price shop, she read the same.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
6. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature of the allegations, submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties, the fact that the applicant's name came in the
memorandum statement of co-accused Topeshwar Sahu, and
further considering that co-accused Harishankar Sahu has been
granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2026
in MCRCA No. 1531 of 2026, without commenting on the merits of
the case, I am inclined to allow the present anticipatory bail
application.

4
7. Accordingly, application is allowed and it is directed that in the
event of arrest of applicant in connection with the crime in question
(265/2026 ), he shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer
arresting him on his executing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.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:
(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;
(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.
Sd/-
( Parth Prateem Sahu )
JUDGE
vaibhav