Chattisgarh High Court
Farhan Siddiqui vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:10307
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2030 of 2026
Farhan Siddiqui S/o Abdul Riaz Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 39,
Sadar Road Near State Bank Main Branch Ambikapur, District- Surguja
(C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station-
Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
27.02.2026
1.This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 742/2025 registered at Police Station- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 RAHUL DEWANGAN and Section 3 and 7 of E.C. Act.
Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.10.2025, Food Inspector Shivkumar Mishra lodged a written report at Police Station Ambikapur alleging that Government Fair Price Shops bearing I.D. Nos. 391001071, 391001029 and 391001054 are operated by Jankalyan Khaadya Suraksha Poshan and Upbhokta Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Ghutrapara (Ambikapur). It is alleged that upon inspection of the said shops for the period from September 2022 to March 2024, shortages were found in the stock of essential commodities. The total value of the alleged shortage was assessed at Rs. 64,94,120.67, comprising 1631.29 quintals of rice worth Rs. 61,62,267.96/-, 10.43 quintals of sugar worth Rs. 49,160.62/-, and 48.34 quintals of chickpeas worth Rs. 2,92,692/-. It is further alleged that for the said shortage of essential food grains, the President and Vice-President of the said Samiti, namely Pawan Singh and Smt. Sunita Paikra, along with the salesmen of the concerned Fair Price Shops, including the present applicant Prince Jaiswal and Mukesh Yadav, are jointly responsible. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the police registered the alleged offences against the present applicant and other accused persons. Hence, the present bail application has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion, without any direct or cogent evidence connecting him with the alleged offence. It is submitted that the applicant was working only in the capacity of an assistant/salesman at the concerned Fair Price Shop, having been appointed by the 3 President and Vice-President of the Society, and had no authority, control or dominion over the procurement, storage, allocation or distribution policy of the food grains. The entire stock was lifted, received and managed under the supervision and directions of the President and Vice-President of the Jankalyan Khaadya Suraksha Poshan and Upbhokta Sewa Sahkari Samiti, and the applicant had no independent role in financial transactions or maintenance of stock accounts. It is further contended that no specific overt act has been attributed to the applicant in the FIR or charge-sheet to demonstrate his direct involvement in any alleged embezzlement or misappropriation of essential commodities, and that the alleged shortage pertains to stock verification for the period from September 2022 to March 2024, thus, the applicant has been implicated solely on account of his employment, without any material to establish mens rea or personal gain. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Mukesh Yadav, Pawan Singh, Sheif Ali and Sunita Paikra have already been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court vide orders dated 06.02.2026, 06.02.2026, 06.02.2026 and 05.01.2026 in MCRC Nos. 462/2026, 982/2026, 982/2026 and 9541/2025 respectively. He also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent, and he is in jail since 28.10.2025, the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has 4 been filed before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 28.10.2025, the fact that though the present applicant and other co-accused were committed that said crime, but other co- accused persons, namely, Mukesh Yadav, Pawan Singh, Sheif Ali and Sunita Paikra have already been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court vide orders dated 06.02.2026, 06.02.2026, 06.02.2026 and 05.01.2026 in MCRC Nos. 462/2026, 982/2026, 982/2026 and 9541/2025 respectively, and the case of present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused persons, further the applicant has no criminal antecedent, the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant - Farhan Siddiqui, involved in Crime No. 742/2025 registered at Police Station- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 7 of E.C. Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in 5 the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the 6 opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan