Anticipatory bail denied for Paddy Procurement In-Charge facing prosecution for substantial stock shortages and financial irregularities.

The applicant, an Assistant Manager/Manager of the Gramin Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Baghamuda, was booked for criminal breach of trust following an inspection by a team led by the Deputy Collector.

Physical verification of the Paddy Procurement Center revealed a shortage of 3,304 bags of harvested paddy (valued at ₹40,96,960/-) compared to the 1,25,878 bags recorded in the online system.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail, contending that he was falsely implicated, that he was not the Gunny Bag In-charge or Computer Operator, and that his requests for a physical recount were ignored by authorities.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail despite the detected physical shortage of state-procured paddy under his supervision.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaced Section 438 of the CrPC regarding the directions for grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest.

The substantive charge involves Section 316(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which pertains to criminal breach of trust by a public servant, banker, merchant, or agent.

The Court examined the gravity of the offense and the specific role of the applicant as the Committee Manager responsible for managing the procured stock.

It rejected the applicant's defense regarding improper counting, noting that the applicant was present during the physical verification by the Deputy Collector but failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the substantial discrepancy of 3,304 bags.

The Court emphasized the magnitude of the financial loss to the Government (exceeding ₹40 lakhs) and found that the prima facie material indicating financial irregularities outweighed the applicant's claims of procedural unfairness.

It held that given the seriousness of the financial loss and the applicant's failure to account for the stock shortage during the official inspection, the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail was not warranted.

Case dismissed.