MCRCA/1534/2026 of GYANRANJAN DAS Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 4 October 2026

1. Applicants have filed this application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for grant of anticipatory bail as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.152 of 2026 registered at Police Station- Torwa, District- Bilaspur (CG) for offence punishable under Section 316 (4) of BNS.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Sheikh Ehtesham @ Tipu, Manager of shop named as Champions Life Style, Torwa, Bilaspur, lodged a written complaint on 16.03.2026, alleging that the applicants were working in the said shop and were entrusted with the work, affairs, stock and accounts of the establishment. It is alleged that during the period from 27.02.2026 to 28.02.2026, applicants left the establishment without informing the management and, upon subsequent verification, articles worth approximately Rs. 30,000/- and an amount of approximately Rs. 9,000/- received from customers were found unaccounted for. On the basis of the complaint made, offence is registered against the applicants.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the crime. They have not committed any offence as alleged against them. As the applicants left the job, false and fabricated report has been lodged against them. There is no other criminal antecedent of applicants. Hence, they may be protected by granting benefit of anticipatory bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission of learned counsel for the applicants. She submits that there is specific allegations against applicants No.1 and 3 that they have accepted the advance amount of Rs.9,000/- from Sachin Das and thereafter he found the shop closed. Upon further asking with regard to allegation against applicant No.2, she submits that there is no specific allegation against applicant No.2.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, statement of Sachin Das, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to applicants No. 1 & 3. Accordingly, application filed on behalf of applicant No.1- Gyanranjan Das and applicant No.3- Mahendra Singh Rajput is hereby dismissed. However, considering that there is no specific allegation against applicant No.2- Smriti Ranjan Das, I am inclined to allow his application.

7. Accordingly, application on behalf of applicant No.2- Smriti Ranjan Das is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant No.2- Smriti Ranjan Das in connection with the aforesaid crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting officer. Applicant shall also abide by the following conditions :- “(i) that the applicant shall remain available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; Certified copy as per rules. Sd/--/---/-/---/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen