Anticipatory Bail Granted Where Allegations of Paddy Procurement Fraud Rest Primarily on Electronic Data Analysis

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding FIR No. 34/2026 involving alleged large-scale irregularities in paddy procurement and transportation.

Following alerts from the 'Satark App', an investigation by the Collector of Mungeli revealed that vehicles linked to the applicant’s rice mills were reportedly carrying loads 200% to 1,117% beyond their registered capacity.

An inspection of "Vardhman Rice Mill" and "Vardhman Milling Industries" found 556 excess bags of paddy without documentation and 4,900 bags of rice suspected to be diverted from the Public Distribution System (PDS).

The State alleged a criminal conspiracy causing financial losses of approximately ₹1.76 crore and ₹1.41 crore through fake gate passes and diverted paddy.

The applicant, aged 61, contended that the overloading allegations were based on software data rather than physical weighment and that he has a clean 32-year business record.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the nature of the economic allegations and the age of the applicant.

The Court considered Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 438 CrPC) regarding anticipatory bail.

It assessed the offences under Sections 318(4) (cheating), 316(5) (criminal breach of trust), 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, alongside Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

The court balanced the gravity of the economic offence against the principles of personal liberty, the necessity of custodial interrogation, and the absence of prior criminal antecedents.

The Court noted that the allegations regarding overloading and illegal diversion are primarily based on software data analysis and documentary records already in the possession of the investigating agency.

While the State argued that custodial interrogation was necessary due to the financial loss to the government, the Court found that the matter requires detailed trial-based scrutiny to determine the veracity of "fake" gate passes and actual diversion.

Recognizing the applicant's age (61 years), his lack of criminal antecedents, and the fact that the trial would likely be protracted, the Court determined that the applicant's liberty could be protected without prejudice to the investigation, provided he adheres to strict conditions to prevent witness tampering or interference with evidence.

It held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on a personal bond with one surety.

The relief was granted on conditions that the applicant must appear at all trial proceedings, submit Aadhaar verification, refrain from inducing or threatening witnesses, and not involve himself in similar offences in the future.