Anticipatory bail granted to procurement officer alleging procedural irregularities and lack of dishonest intent in paddy shortage.

The applicant, serving as the Samiti Incharge of the Paddy Procurement Centre in Kena, Mahasamund, was charged under Section 318(4) of the BNS, 2023, following a physical verification of paddy stock conducted on January 17–18, 2026.

A team of government officials alleged a shortage of 4,013 bags of paddy.

The applicant contended that the verification was conducted improperly while procurement was ongoing, making an accurate count impossible—an objection he recorded on the panchnama.

He further alleged that the FIR was a result of political pressure and external complaints aimed at extortion.

Apprehending arrest, the applicant filed this first anticipatory bail application.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of stock shortage and the applicant's defense of procedural irregularity.

Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant anticipatory bail.

Section 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which pertains to cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

The Court exercised its discretionary power based on established principles of personal liberty and the necessity of custodial interrogation.

The Court examined the competing claims: the prosecution’s allegation of a significant stock shortage and the applicant’s defense that the ongoing procurement process rendered the physical verification unreliable.

The Court noted the applicant’s assertion that he had officially objected to the counting method at the time of the panchnama and that tally sheets for the current financial year showed no shortage.

After reviewing the case diary and considering the nature of the dispute, the Court determined that custodial interrogation was not justified under the present circumstances and that the applicant did not appear likely to evade the legal process.

It held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released upon executing a personal bond and providing one local surety subject to conditions including: non-interference with witnesses, regular appearances before the trial court, submission of Aadhaar verification with a postcard-sized photograph, and a mandate not to involve himself in similar future offences.