Anticipatory bail granted where applicant lacked direct involvement in bogus paddy transportation and misappropriation records.

The applicant sought first anticipatory bail following an FIR registered for alleged irregularities in paddy procurement and transportation.

An inspection of rice mills in District Mungeli revealed a stock of 1,87,606 bags, which was 29,681 bags in excess of online records.

The prosecution alleged "bogus lifting" based on data showing low-capacity vehicles transporting quantities far beyond their permissible limits.

The applicant contended he is neither the owner of the mill nor the vehicles, had no role in issuing gate-passes or supervising transportation, and had been falsely implicated.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and his specific role.

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

The substantive charges involved Sections 318(4) (cheating), 316(5) (criminal breach of trust), 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), and 3(5) (joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, concerning the contravention of orders regarding essential commodities.

The Court evaluated the contentions that the applicant was not a proprietor of the involved "National Dal Mill" nor was he the owner or person-in-charge of the transportation vehicles.

It noted the defense's argument that any liability for overloading or fictitious transportation entries should rest with the registered owners or organizers, not the applicant, who had no signing authority over transport documents.

The Court also took into account the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents and his personal family circumstances.

Without expressing a final opinion on the merits of the alleged misappropriation, the Court determined that custodial interrogation was not necessitated by the materials available on record.

The Court held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released upon executing a personal bond and one local surety.

The relief was made subject to conditions, including non-inducement of witnesses, regular appearance before the trial court, and a prohibition against committing similar future offences.