Chattisgarh High Court
Khorbahara Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:13010
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1696 of 2026
Khorbahara Sahu S/o Firangi Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Belsarai,
P.S. Fasterpur, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Lalpur, District Mungeli,
Chhattisgarh.
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Dr. Arpit Lall, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
ABHISHEK SHRIVAS
SHRIVAS Date:
2026.03.19
Order on Board
15:04:01 +0530
18.03.2026
1.This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 09/2026 registered at Police Station - Lalpur, District - Mungeli (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.01.2026, the complainant, Gajraj Singh Kshatriya, Supervisor, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Kanteli Branch, received a letter bearing No. Nodal/2026/243/Mungeli dated 19.01.2026 from the Nodal Officer, 2 District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, District Mungeli. According to the said letter, a report was submitted regarding the registration of an FIR in connection with irregularities at the Paddy Procurement Centre, Singhanpuri site, Village Koylari (ID No. 40001701). It was alleged that the Paddy Procurement Centre In-charge, Murari Sahu, and the Computer Operator, Khorbahara Sahu, had lifted paddy from the said procurement centre, in addition to the officially designated GPS-equipped vehicles, by overloading it into unauthorized vehicles not equipped with GPS. It is further alleged that a total of 4,542 quintals of paddy, valued at Rs. 1,07,59,998/- (calculated at the MSP rate of Rs. 2,639 per quintal), was dishonestly and deliberately lifted from the procurement centre in violation of the prescribed rules, thereby causing financial loss by committing fraud.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents. He further submits that the other co-accused person, namely, Murari Sahu has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 12.03.2026 in MCRC No. 1204 of 2026. Therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on regular bail on the ground of parity.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case. However, she could not dispute the fact that an identically situated co-accused has already been granted regular bail by this Court.
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 3 the applicant has no criminal antecedents and the other co-accused persons, namely, Murari Sahu has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 12.03.2026 in MCRC No. 1204 of 2026. Also considering the fact that the charge - sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court and the applicant has been in jail since 22.01.2026 and conclusion of the trial may takes some more time. Therefore, 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. Let the Bail of the Applicant - Khorbahara Sahu, involved in Crime No. 09/2026 registered at Police Station - Lalpur, District - Mungeli (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two 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 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 4 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 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Abhishek