[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Abdul Sattar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
GOURI
MUDALIAR
Digitally signed by 2026:CGHC:12530
GOURI
MUDALIAR
Date: 2026.03.16
17:13:04 +0530 NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1374 of 2026
1 - Abdul Sattar S/o Late Gulam Kadar Aged About 55 Years R/o House No.
07, Daupara, Mungeli, Thana And Tehsil And District Mungeli C.G.
2 - Mohmaad Yusuf S/o Late Gulam Kadar, Aged About 53 Years R/o House
No. 07, Daupara, Mungeli, Thana And Tehsil And District Mungeli C.G.
... Applicants
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Mungeli,
District Mungeli C.G.
... Respondent
For Applicants : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate with Shri Arjit
Tiwari, Advocate.
For : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy.G.A.
Respondent/State
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
16/03/2026
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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime
No.35/2026 registered at Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli
Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 318 (4), 316(5),
61(2) read with section 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, & Under Section
3 sub-section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that as per the information received
on 10.01.2026 through the alert application (Satark App) of CCC
Raipur, that the several rice millers' connivance with procurement
centers, fraudulently transporting the paddy from registered transport
vehicle and showing the weight which is more than 200 percent of
strength of the transporting vehicle which is technically impossible.
Hence, an investigation team have been formed by the authorities.
During the investigation of Upleta Rice Mill MA638511, Upleta Rice Mill
MA401259 & National Dal Mill MA639750, an investigation was
conducted of aforesaid mills & godown. During the investigation the
team have found that all the three rice mills are working on the same
premises and no separate go down is made. The investigating has
conducted the physical inspection on 12.01.2026 & 13.01.2026 and
during the inspection, the team has found 187606 bags of paddy
however as per the online stock of the applicants firm is 29681 bags of
paddy. Therefore, an FIR has been registered punishable Under
Section 316(5), 61(2) read with section 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita,
& under section 3 sub section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 at
police station Mungeli, District - Mungeli (C.G)
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are
innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
submitted that during inspection 1,87,606 bags of paddy were found
from the applicants' mills, out of which 1,57,925 bags were received
from the Government for milling for the financial year 2025-26, and
11,730 bags were previous year stock of National Dal Mill for the
financial year 2024-25. It is further submitted that 5,930 bags and
11,574 bags of paddy were legally purchased from the mandi after
payment of mandi tax for personal milling by National Dal Mill and
Upleta Rice Mill respectively, which is duly supported by mandi stock
reports. After proper calculation, only 447 bags (approximately 178
quintals) remain, which is normal buffer stock maintained by millers to
cover loss during milling. Hence, no irregularity has been committed by
the applicants. He would submit that co-accused Abdul Samad has
been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No.227/2026 on
02/03/2026. He would submit that applicant No.1 has one criminal
antecedent and applicant No.2 has no criminal antecedents, they are in
jail since 20/01/2026 and conclusion of trial will take some time,
therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application
but do not dispute the fact that co-accused has been granted
anticipatory bail by this Court.
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,
submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the fact that
co-accused Abdul Samad has been granted anticipatory bail by this
Court in MCRCA No.227/2026 on 02/03/2026, period of detention of
the applicants since 20/01/2026 and also considering the fact that trial
is likely to take some time for its conclusion, without commenting
anything on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the
applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the
Applicants- Abdul Sattar & Mohmaad Yusuf, involved in Crime
No.35/2026 registered at Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli
Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 318 (4), 316(5),
61(2) read with section 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, & Under Section
3 sub-section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, be released on
bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond with two sureties 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 misuses 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
for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
CHIEF JUSTICE
gouri
