Anticipatory bail granted where applicant lacks direct nexus to alleged misappropriation and bogus transportation of essential commodities.

Through the "Sartak" app data analysis, the State detected "technically impossible" paddy transportation (loadings exceeding 200% to 1117% of vehicle capacity), suggesting misappropriation and collusion between rice mills and procurement centers.

An enquiry team inspected National Dal Mill on 12-01-2026 and found 460.80 quintals of PDS rice (FRK mixed rice worth ₹19,35,360) stored without authorization.

While Abdul Sattar is the proprietor, the applicant (his son, Abdul Samad) was present as the operator and gave a statement.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail, arguing he is neither the mill owner nor the vehicle owner/organizer and that the gravity of the offence does not warrant custodial interrogation.

The State opposed the plea citing one criminal antecedent and the nature of the economic offence.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for offences under the Essential Commodities Act.

2. Whether custodial interrogation is necessary given the applicant’s specific role and the nature of the evidence.

The Court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 438 CrPC), which governs the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest.

It examined Section 3 and Section 7(1)(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, concerning the punishment for contravention of orders made under the Act.

The Court also considered Clause 5(29) of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System Control Order, 2016, regarding unauthorized possession of PDS commodities.

The Court evaluated the "facts and circumstances" and the "gravity of the offence" against the specific involvement of the applicant.

It observed that there was no specific material at the current stage indicating the applicant personally supervised the loading of vehicles, issued transport documents, or directly benefited from the alleged "bogus" transactions.

Although the State pointed to a criminal antecedent and the seriousness of the economic loss, the Court determined that because the applicant was not the registered owner of the vehicles or the mill, and since the trial/investigation would be lengthy, custodial interrogation was not justified.

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

This was subject to conditions: the applicant must cooperate with the investigation, not induce or threaten witnesses, appear for all court dates, submit his Aadhaar details for verification, and refrain from committing similar future offences.