MCRCA/1615/2026 of HARISHANKAR SAHU Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 30 September 2026

1. As both these applications are arising out of same crime number, therefore, they are being heard together and dispose of by this common order.

2. Applicants have preferred these applications under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail as they apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No. 373/2026

registered at Police Station- Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that the Government Fair Price Shop situated at Gram Panchayat Serikhedi is being operated by Shri Radha Mohan Women’s Self-Help Group. Applicant in MCRCA No. 1584/2026- Maya Yadav is its President, Anju Yadav is the Seller, and the applicant in MCRCA No. 1615/2026, Harishankar Sahu, is working as the Assistant Seller. During surprise inspection of the Fair Price Shop by Food Inspector, stock verification was carried out. During reconciliation of the stock, a shortage of 1,225 quintals of food grains was allegedly found, valued at approximately ₹50,09,956/-, along with certain other irregularities. On the basis of the written complaint submitted by Food Inspector Devesh Devdas, Police Station Mandir Hasaud, aforementioned crime was registered against applicants and others.

4. Mr. Amrito Das, learned Senior counsel for the applicant-Maya Yadav would submit that the allegation levelled against applicant is absolutely false and baseless. Applicant was earlier appointed as President of Shri Radha Mohan Women’s Self-Help Group but in the year 2022 she had already resigned from the said post and in her place one Uttara Yadav was appointed and since then applicant is not the President of the said society. He contended that according to the allegation, when a surprise inspection was done of the buffer stock, the inspection authority found shortage of certain food-grains and other commodities and based on the report aforementioned crime was registered. As the applicant is not related in any manner with the society as in the year 2024, she cannot be said to have committed any offence as alleged.

5. Mr. Akash Agrawal, learned counsel for applicant- Harishankar Sahu, submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the said crime. He is not a salesman in the said society but a labourer and therefore he could not be expected to have committed the offence as alleged. He also submits that as the applicant is working as labourer with the said Woman Self-Help Group which also runs one another fair price shop in Telibandha, Raipur, in which also based on the surprise check by inspection, a crime was registered implicating the applicant. In the said crime, applicant has been granted anticipatory bail on 17.09.2026 in MCRCA No. 1531/2026.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of counsel for applicants and would submit that applicants are involved in the said crime, as per allegation available in the case diary. Upon asking as to who is the salesman in the Government Fair Price Shop situated at Gram Panchayat Serikhedi, he submits that Anju Yadav was working as saleswoman, as per the material collected by the police during investigation.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents available in the application.

8. On due consideration of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission of learned counsel for the parties, without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to allow these anticipatory bail applications.

9. Accordingly, applications are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicants in connection with aforementioned crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting them on their executing a personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- each applicant with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting Officer. Applicants shall also abide by the following conditions:

(i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigation Officer as and when required;

(ii) that the applicants 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) that the applicants shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and

(iv) that the applicants shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till conclusion of the trial.

10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn

JUDGE