[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Durgesh Kumar Gendre vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11909
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 259 of 2026
Durgesh Kumar Gendre S/o Late Shri Lakhan Lal Gendre Aged About 42
Years Presently On The Post Of Society Manager Khartora, R/o Village-
Khaira, P.S. Palari, District- Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) (Age Not
VAIBHAV
SINGH
Mentioned In The Impugned Order) ... Applicant
Digitally signed
by VAIBHAV
SINGH
Date:
2026.03.12
versus
17:59:45 +0530
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The P.S. Palari, District- Balodabazar
Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
12.03.2026
1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.35/2026
registered at Police Station - Palari, District - Balodabazar Bhatapara
(C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338,
& 340(2) of the BNS.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that, on 23.01.2026 the complainant
who is the C.E.O. of the Government Society Paddy Center Khartora
appeared before the P.S. and lodged written report against the present
applicant alleging that on dated 21.01.2026 without any token for
purchasing paddy in favour of the present applicant has brought the
paddy and has entered the paddy through online sale by which the
forgery was committed and about 53 bags of paddy has been
purchased without sale hence the police has on written complainant of
the complainant lodged FIR in crime no. 35/2026 for the offence
committed under section 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of B.N.S.
3. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. It is submitted that as per the purchasing record dated
21.01.2026, the name of the applicant's brother, namely Santosh
Kumar Gendre, was already entered at Serial No. 38 for the purchase
of 53 bags of paddy weighing about 21.20 quintals, and the same was
duly purchased. The entry was made through the computerized system
under the general seat, which cannot be altered. However, the superior
authorities who visited the society have wrongly implicated the
applicant by alleging that he misappropriated 53 bags of paddy and
entered the same in his own name, whereas the computer sheet
containing the token number and details of the farmer clearly shows
that there was no misappropriation. Further, the police have neither
seized nor examined the CCTV footage of the society premises where
the paddy bags were brought and kept in the open ground. In fact, the
physical presence of the 53 paddy bags was available and after proper
measurement the same were purchased in the name of the applicant's
brother to whom the token had been allotted, a copy of which dated
21.01.2026 is filed as Annexure A/3. It is further submitted that when
the C.E.O. and S.D.O. visited the spot for physical verification, the
paddy bags were found present and the applicant, being the Manager
of the society, clearly stated that the paddy belonged to his brother;
however, the authorities did not consider his explanation and falsely
implicated him in this case, though no misappropriation or forgery was
committed. The applicant is a government servant and has been
serving in the society for the last 19 years with an unblemished record
and no civil, criminal, or departmental proceedings have ever been
initiated against him. Moreover, the loan amount granted in favour of
the applicant's brother Santosh Kumar Gendre through KCC was duly
repaid on 21.01.2026, where the loan amount was Rs. 35,748/- and an
amount of Rs. 14,474.80 was returned, which further shows that no
forgery or misappropriation has taken place. The applicant is a
permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title and
there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the
prosecution witnesses. The applicant is also ready and willing to abide
by any condition that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court while
granting bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the
material available in the case diary, this Court, without expressing any
opinion on the merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
present applicant.
7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the
event of arrest of the applicant - Durgesh Kumar Gendre, on
executing a personal bond and one local surety in the like sum to the
satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the
following conditions:-
(a) he 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) he shall not act in any manner which will be
prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.
(c) he 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) he shall not involve himself in any offence of
similar nature in future.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
CHIEF JUSTICE
vaibhav
