[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Amol Chand vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:16449
Digitally
signed by
MADHURIMA
MADHURIMA THAKUR
NAFR
THAKUR Date:
2026.04.10
15:52:28
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 518 of 2026
Amol Chand S/o Ramkarn Aged About 34 Years Caste Raidas R/o
Village Ratga, P.S. Marwahi , District- Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.)
...Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station Incharge P.S. Marwahi , District-
Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
09/04/2026
1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the
applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime
No. 125/2025 registered at Police Station - Marwahi, District-
Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) for the offence punishable under
Sections 4, 6, 10 of C.G. Krishi Pashu Parirakshan Adhiniyam,
2004 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,
1960 and Section 61(2), 112 of BNS, 2023.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.07.2025, on the basis
of a secret information, the police reached near Bartola, Ratga,
where five persons were allegedly found driving cattle on foot
through forest routes towards another State for slaughter. On
seeing the police, four persons allegedly fled from the spot taking
advantage of the forest and rainfall, while one co-accused was
apprehended. During investigation, on the basis of memorandum
statements of co-accused persons, the present applicant has
been implicated, alleging that he was also involved in transporting
cattle for slaughter.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated solely on the basis of
memorandum statements of co-accused persons, which have
limited evidentiary value. It is contended that no recovery has
been made from the present applicant and he was not
apprehended from the spot. It is further submitted that all similarly
placed co-accused persons have already been granted either
regular bail or anticipatory bail by the competent courts, including
the Hon'ble High Court, and the case of the present applicant
stands on similar footing. It is also submitted that the applicant is a
permanent resident, has no criminal antecedents, and undertakes
to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all conditions
imposed by the Court.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application and
submits that the applicant is a main accused and was absconding
since the date of incident, and there is a likelihood of tampering
with evidence and influencing witnesses if he is granted
anticipatory bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. From the perusal of the case diary, it appears that the name of the
present applicant has surfaced primarily on the basis of
memorandum statements of co-accused persons, and no
independent recovery has been effected from him. The
prosecution has not placed on record any direct material showing
the physical presence of the applicant at the spot at the time of
seizure. So far as the contention regarding the applicant being
absconding is concerned, the same is a matter of appreciation
during trial, particularly when no specific overt act, apart from
general allegations, has been substantiated at this stage. It is also
significant that other co-accused persons, including those similarly
placed, have already been granted bail/anticipatory bail by the
competent courts. The principle of parity, therefore, is attracted in
the present case, as no distinguishing material has been placed
on record to show that the role of the present applicant is graver
than that of the co-accused who have been granted relief.
7. The implication of the applicant is primarily based on
memorandum statements of co-accused. No recovery has been
made from the applicant. Co-accused persons have already been
granted bail/anticipatory bail. The applicant is a permanent
resident and there is no material to show likelihood of absconding,
if protected by appropriate conditions.
8. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, considering
the fact that the investigation and trial are likely to take time,
without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am
inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant.
9. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that
in the event of arrest of the applicant - Amol Chand, on executing
a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction
of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the
following conditions:-
(a) The applicant 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) The applicant shall not act in any manner
which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious
trial.
(c) The applicant 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) The applicant shall not involve himself in any
offence of similar nature in future.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Madhurima
