Chhattisgarh High Court
MCRC/9048/2026 of TOPESHWAR SAHU Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 25 September 2026
2026:CGHC:41990 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9048 of 2026 Topeshwar Sahu S/o Kamalnarayan Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Bhatapara, Kachna, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Arakshi, Kendra,
CGHC010377602026
2026:CGHC:41990
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9048 of 2026
Topeshwar Sahu S/o Kamalnarayan Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Bhatapara, Kachna, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Arakshi, Kendra, Thana Telibandha, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Applicant
: Ms. Veetika Choubey, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD
26.09.2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Applicant has filed this First Bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 265/2026 registered at Police Station – Telibandha, Raipur, (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(7) of the Essential Commodity Act.
2. Case of prosecution in brief is that, applicant is working as a salesmen in the fair price shop. When the Officer of the Food Department namely
Sarita Agrawal, Food Inspector inspected the fair price shop she found irregularities and shortage of the rice to the tune of 33.097 quintals. At the time of inspection Food Inspector also found that 265 ration cards of the beneficiaries kept in back. Based upon which the report was submitted and thereafter, the FIR was registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime, he has not committed any offence as alleged. She further submits that the inspection of the fair price shop was held on 28.11.2025, however, the appointment of the present applicant as salesmen in the fair price shop was on 18. 8.2026, therefore, the allegations leveled against the applicant is completely baseless. She submits that the applicant may enlarged on bail.
4. Learned counsel for State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that at the time of inspection the applicant was found present in the fair price shop as a salesmen. At the time of inspection Panchnama was also prepared and in the Panchnama report presence of applicant along with other co-accused persons/salesmen and President of the Samiti was recorded.
5. Upon putting query to the learned counsel for the State, about the charge-sheet, she submits that the matter is still under investigation. Charge-sheet has not been filed till now.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed along with the bail application.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties and further considering the fact that the applicant is salesmen in the fair price shop and crime is under investigation,I do not find present to be a fit case to allow the application, accordingly, application is dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Alfiza
JUDGE