Chattisgarh High Court
Durgesh Kumar Gendre vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11909
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 259 of 2026
Durgesh Kumar Gendre S/o Late Shri Lakhan Lal Gendre Aged About 42
Years Presently On The Post Of Society Manager Khartora, R/o Village-
Khaira, P.S. Palari, District- Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) (Age Not
VAIBHAV
SINGH
Mentioned In The Impugned Order) ... Applicant
Digitally signed
by VAIBHAV
SINGH
Date:
2026.03.12
versus
17:59:45 +0530
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The P.S. Palari, District- Balodabazar
Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.03.2026
1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.35/2026 registered at Police Station - Palari, District - Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, & 340(2) of the BNS.
2
2. The prosecution story in brief is that, on 23.01.2026 the complainant who is the C.E.O. of the Government Society Paddy Center Khartora appeared before the P.S. and lodged written report against the present applicant alleging that on dated 21.01.2026 without any token for purchasing paddy in favour of the present applicant has brought the paddy and has entered the paddy through online sale by which the forgery was committed and about 53 bags of paddy has been purchased without sale hence the police has on written complainant of the complainant lodged FIR in crime no. 35/2026 for the offence committed under section 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of B.N.S.
3. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that as per the purchasing record dated 21.01.2026, the name of the applicant's brother, namely Santosh Kumar Gendre, was already entered at Serial No. 38 for the purchase of 53 bags of paddy weighing about 21.20 quintals, and the same was duly purchased. The entry was made through the computerized system under the general seat, which cannot be altered. However, the superior authorities who visited the society have wrongly implicated the applicant by alleging that he misappropriated 53 bags of paddy and entered the same in his own name, whereas the computer sheet containing the token number and details of the farmer clearly shows that there was no misappropriation. Further, the police have neither seized nor examined the CCTV footage of the society premises where the paddy bags were brought and kept in the open ground. In fact, the physical presence of the 53 paddy bags was available and after proper measurement the same were purchased in the name of the applicant's brother to whom the token had been allotted, a copy of which dated 3 21.01.2026 is filed as Annexure A/3. It is further submitted that when the C.E.O. and S.D.O. visited the spot for physical verification, the paddy bags were found present and the applicant, being the Manager of the society, clearly stated that the paddy belonged to his brother; however, the authorities did not consider his explanation and falsely implicated him in this case, though no misappropriation or forgery was committed. The applicant is a government servant and has been serving in the society for the last 19 years with an unblemished record and no civil, criminal, or departmental proceedings have ever been initiated against him. Moreover, the loan amount granted in favour of the applicant's brother Santosh Kumar Gendre through KCC was duly repaid on 21.01.2026, where the loan amount was Rs. 35,748/- and an amount of Rs. 14,474.80 was returned, which further shows that no forgery or misappropriation has taken place. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses. The applicant is also ready and willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court while granting bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory bail application.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available in the case diary, this Court, without expressing any 4 opinion on the merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant.
7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant - Durgesh Kumar Gendre, on executing a personal bond and one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-
(a) he 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 fact to the Court.
(b) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.
(c) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
(d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court.
(e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav