Chattisgarh High Court
Kanshiram Khunte vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:12764
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1505 of 2026
Kanshiram Khunte S/o Anjori Khunte, Aged About 30 Years R/o.- Village-
Emarsahi, Police Station And Tahsil - Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Masturi,
District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
17.03.2026
1.The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 821/2025, registered at Police Station : Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a written complaint was RAHUL submitted alleging that during the Kharif marketing year 2025, DEWANGAN certain irregularities were committed in the procurement of paddy, Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN and upon physical verification by a joint investigation team, a 2 shortage of 920 quintals of paddy was detected, amounting to a violation of the prescribed procurement policy. It is alleged that the accused, Kansiram Khunte, working as a computer operator, deliberately facilitated the purchase of fake paddy, thereby causing a financial loss of Rs. 28,52,000/- to the concerned committee. On the basis of the said complaint, Police Station Masturi registered an FIR bearing Crime No. 821/2025 against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), and 340(2) of the BNS, and he was subsequently arrested on 16.12.2025. Hence, this bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged. It is submitted that the applicant was working as a computer operator at the paddy collection centre and has been roped in only on the basis of false and motivated allegations arising out of personal enmity with the in- charge of the centre. He further submits that the very basis of the prosecution case, i.e., the alleged shortage shown during physical verification, is doubtful and unreliable, as the said verification is undated and does not bear the signature of the Nodal Officer. It is further submitted that subsequent verification conducted on 17.12.2025 in the presence of villagers, panch and sarpanch, supported by video recording, as well as another physical verification dated 28.12.2025 conducted in the presence of responsible officers, clearly revealed that no shortage of paddy existed. It is contended that the applicant has not committed any 3 irregularity and has been falsely implicated with an intention to tarnish his reputation, for which representations have also been made to the Collector and Superintendent of Police. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the charge- sheet has been submitted before the competent Court, and he is in jail since 16.12.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. She further submits that the applicant, being a computer operator, was entrusted with the responsibility of procurement work and has actively indulged in serious financial irregularities by facilitating the purchase of fake paddy, resulting in a substantial loss of Rs. 28,52,000/- to the committee. It is further submitted that the shortage of 920 quintals of paddy has been duly verified by the joint investigation team, clearly establishing the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. Considering the gravity of the economic offence, the breach of trust, and the material collected during investigation, it is prayed that the present applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail in this case.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that though the applicant, being a computer operator, was entrusted 4 with the responsibility of procurement work and has actively indulged in serious financial irregularities by facilitating the purchase of fake paddy, resulting in a substantial loss of Rs. 28,52,000/- to the committee, but also considering the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.12.2025, he has no previous criminal antecedents and the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the Applicant - Kanshiram Khunte, involved in Crime No. 821/2025, registered at Police Station : Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in 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 5 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 misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and the applicant fail 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 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