[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Jagdish Prasad Alias Jeevan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:10305
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2044 of 2026
1 - Jagdish Prasad Alias Jeevan S/o Jaleshwar Prasad Aged About 18
Years R/o Village Chamari, Tingipur, P.S. City Mungeli, Distt. Mungeli,
Chhattisgarh.
2 - Yogendra Sahu Alias Janu S/o Dhanau Ram Aged About 22 Years
R/o Village Chamari, Tingipur, P.S. Mungeli, Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Shravan Yadav S/o Manoj Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Village
Chamari, Tingipur, P.S. Mungeli, Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Govind Sahu Alias Bakbak S/o Punnuram Sahu Aged About 23 Years
R/o Village Chamari, P.S. Mungeli, Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Akash Singh Chhatri S/o Dev Singh Chhatri Aged About 20 Years R/o
Village Chamari, Tingipur, P.S. Mungeli, Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicants
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. City Kotwali Mungeli, District-
Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
... Non-applicant
For Applicants : Mr. Navneet Singh Gumber, Advocate
Ms. Indrapreet Kaur Chhabra, Advocate
RAHUL
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer
DEWANGAN
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
2
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
27.02.2026
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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime
No. 31/2026 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali Mungeli,
District- Mungeli, (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 331(4), 305
and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that a written complaint was
lodged by Parmeshwar Sahu (Salesman) stating that his wife,
Pooja Sahu, operates a Government Fair Price Shop under the
Kabir Women Self-Help Group at Village Tingipur, Gram Panchayat
Chamari, which manages and distributes government-supplied rice
and sugar. It is alleged in the complaint that unknown persons
broke open the lock of the society's godown and committed theft of
56 bags of rice and 5 bags of sugar, valued at Rs. 74,250/-. It is
further stated that distribution for the month of December was
completed on 30.12.2025, and thereafter the shop was closed. The
remaining stock consisted of 66 bags of rice from the previous
month and 132 bags of rice received on 26.12.2025 for distribution
in January, totaling 198 bags of rice and 5 bags of sugar. On
17.01.2026 at about 12:00 noon, the complainant was informed by
Amoldas Manikpuri and Shiv Kumar Sahu (Sarpanch) that
unknown persons had broken the lock of the society and committed
theft of the aforesaid 56 bags of rice valued at Rs. 70,000/- and 5
bags of sugar (250 kg) valued at Rs. 4,250/-, totaling Rs. 74,250/-.
During the course of investigation, the present applicants were
arrested in connection with the said offence, and hence, this bail
application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present
applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated
in the crime in question. It is further submitted that the FIR in the
present case was initially lodged against unknown persons and
that there is an unexplained delay of 18 days in lodging the same.
It is further submitted that, as per the FIR and the written
complaint dated 26.12.2025, it has been alleged that 132 bags of
rice were received by the Society, however, the stock register
annexed with the charge-sheet clearly reflects that no such
quantity of rice was received by the Kabir Women Self-Help
Group, Village Tingipur, Gram Panchayat Chamari, on the said
date. It is also contended that though the complainant has stated
that after 30.12.2025 the society remained closed and that he was
informed about the alleged theft only on 17.01.2026, the stock
register indicates that the shop remained operational during
January on several dates, namely 01.01.2026, 07.01.2026,
09.01.2026, 10.01.2026, 16.01.2026 and 17.01.2026, which
belies the prosecution story and suggests that in the event of any
theft, the complainant would have had immediate knowledge
thereof. It is further submitted that no shortage of ration stock has
been found as per the stock register, and the applicants have
been falsely implicated on the basis of a vague and baseless
complaint. It is further submitted that the only applicant No.04 has
one criminal antecedent, which has already been disposed of. It is
further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed and the
applicants No.1, 2 & 3 are in jail since 20.01.2026 and applicants
No. 4 & 5 are in jail since 06.02.2026 and trial is likely to take
quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, they pray for grant of
bail to the applicants.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail
application of the present applicants and submits that the charge-
sheet has already been filed in the present case before the
competent Court. She further submits that the applicants are
involved in the serious offence of theft of government food grains
from a Fair Price Shop, causing wrongful loss to the public
distribution system. It is contended that during the course of
investigation sufficient material has been collected connecting the
applicants with the alleged theft of 56 bags of rice and 5 bags of
sugar valued at Rs. 74,250/-, and considering the gravity of the
offence and its impact on public interest, the applicants are not
entitled to be released on bail.
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 allegation levelled against the applicants and
the fact that though the applicants are involved in the commission
of the alleged offence of theft, but also considering the fact that the
charge-sheet has been filed, only applicant No.04 has one
criminal antecedent which has already been disposed of and the
applicants No.1, 2 & 3 are in jail since 20.01.2026 and applicants
No. 4 & 5 are in jail since 06.02.2026 and trial is likely to take
quite long time for its conclusion. Hence, this Court is of the view
that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let
the Applicants - Jagdish Prasad Alias Jeevan, Yogendra Sahu
Alias Janu, Shravan Yadav, Govind Sahu Alias Bakbak and
Akash Singh Chhatri involved in Crime No. 31/2026 registered at
Police Station- City Kotwali Mungeli, District- Mungeli, (C.G.) for the
offence under Sections 331(4), 305 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyay
Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond
with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the
Court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect
that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial
court on each date fixed, either personally or through
their counsel. In case of their absence, without
sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against
them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail
during trial and in order to secure their presence,
proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued
and the applicants fail to appear before the court on
the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial
court shall initiate proceedings against them, in
accordance with law, under Section 209 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) The applicants 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 applicants are
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 them 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
Rahul Dewangan
