Farhan Siddiqui vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 162 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Farhan Siddiqui vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 February, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                  1




                                                              2026:CGHC:10307
                                                                          NAFR

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                    MCRC No. 2030 of 2026

            Farhan Siddiqui S/o Abdul Riaz Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 39,
            Sadar Road Near State Bank Main Branch Ambikapur, District- Surguja
            (C.G.)
                                                                      ... Applicant
                                             versus
            State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station-
            Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)
                                                                 ... Non-Applicant
            For Applicant              : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate
            For Non-Applicant/State    : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate

                            Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
                                        Order on Board
            27.02.2026

            1.

This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for

grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in

connection with Crime No. 742/2025 registered at Police Station-

Ambikapur, District- Surguja, (C.G.) for the offence punishable

under Sections 420, 409, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

RAHUL DEWANGAN and Section 3 and 7 of E.C. Act.

Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.10.2025, Food

Inspector Shivkumar Mishra lodged a written report at Police

Station Ambikapur alleging that Government Fair Price Shops

bearing I.D. Nos. 391001071, 391001029 and 391001054 are

operated by Jankalyan Khaadya Suraksha Poshan and Upbhokta

Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Ghutrapara (Ambikapur). It is alleged that

upon inspection of the said shops for the period from September

2022 to March 2024, shortages were found in the stock of essential

commodities. The total value of the alleged shortage was assessed

at Rs. 64,94,120.67, comprising 1631.29 quintals of rice worth Rs.

61,62,267.96/-, 10.43 quintals of sugar worth Rs. 49,160.62/-, and

48.34 quintals of chickpeas worth Rs. 2,92,692/-. It is further

alleged that for the said shortage of essential food grains, the

President and Vice-President of the said Samiti, namely Pawan

Singh and Smt. Sunita Paikra, along with the salesmen of the

concerned Fair Price Shops, including the present applicant Prince

Jaiswal and Mukesh Yadav, are jointly responsible. On the basis of

the aforesaid report, the police registered the alleged offences

against the present applicant and other accused persons. Hence,

the present bail application has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is

innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case merely

on the basis of suspicion, without any direct or cogent evidence

connecting him with the alleged offence. It is submitted that the

applicant was working only in the capacity of an assistant/salesman

at the concerned Fair Price Shop, having been appointed by the

President and Vice-President of the Society, and had no authority,

control or dominion over the procurement, storage, allocation or

distribution policy of the food grains. The entire stock was lifted,

received and managed under the supervision and directions of the

President and Vice-President of the Jankalyan Khaadya Suraksha

Poshan and Upbhokta Sewa Sahkari Samiti, and the applicant had

no independent role in financial transactions or maintenance of

stock accounts. It is further contended that no specific overt act has

been attributed to the applicant in the FIR or charge-sheet to

demonstrate his direct involvement in any alleged embezzlement or

misappropriation of essential commodities, and that the alleged

shortage pertains to stock verification for the period from

September 2022 to March 2024, thus, the applicant has been

implicated solely on account of his employment, without any

material to establish mens rea or personal gain. He further submits

that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Mukesh Yadav,

Pawan Singh, Sheif Ali and Sunita Paikra have already been

granted bail by this Hon'ble Court vide orders dated 06.02.2026,

06.02.2026, 06.02.2026 and 05.01.2026 in MCRC Nos. 462/2026,

982/2026, 982/2026 and 9541/2025 respectively. He also submits

that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent, and he is in

jail since 28.10.2025, the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial

is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for

grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail

application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has

been filed before the competent Court, but could not dispute the fact

that co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this

Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the

co-accused.

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 offence, period of detention of the applicant

since 28.10.2025, the fact that though the present applicant and

other co-accused were committed that said crime, but other co-

accused persons, namely, Mukesh Yadav, Pawan Singh, Sheif Ali

and Sunita Paikra have already been granted bail by this Hon'ble

Court vide orders dated 06.02.2026, 06.02.2026, 06.02.2026 and

05.01.2026 in MCRC Nos. 462/2026, 982/2026, 982/2026 and

9541/2025 respectively, and the case of present applicant is

identical to that of the co-accused persons, further the applicant has

no criminal antecedent, the charge-sheet has been filed in the

present case, 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. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the

Applicant - Farhan Siddiqui, involved in Crime No. 742/2025

registered at Police Station- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, (C.G.) for

the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 120-B of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and 7 of E.C. Act, 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 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 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