[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Khorbahara Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:13010
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1696 of 2026
Khorbahara Sahu S/o Firangi Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Belsarai,
P.S. Fasterpur, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Lalpur, District Mungeli,
Chhattisgarh.
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Dr. Arpit Lall, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
Digitally signed
by ABHISHEK Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
ABHISHEK SHRIVAS
SHRIVAS Date:
2026.03.19
Order on Board
15:04:01 +0530
18.03.2026
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 applicant
who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 09/2026 registered
at Police Station - Lalpur, District - Mungeli (C.G.), for the offence
punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.01.2026, the complainant,
Gajraj Singh Kshatriya, Supervisor, District Cooperative Central Bank
Limited, Kanteli Branch, received a letter bearing No.
Nodal/2026/243/Mungeli dated 19.01.2026 from the Nodal Officer,
District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, District Mungeli. According to
the said letter, a report was submitted regarding the registration of an FIR
in connection with irregularities at the Paddy Procurement Centre,
Singhanpuri site, Village Koylari (ID No. 40001701). It was alleged that
the Paddy Procurement Centre In-charge, Murari Sahu, and the
Computer Operator, Khorbahara Sahu, had lifted paddy from the said
procurement centre, in addition to the officially designated GPS-equipped
vehicles, by overloading it into unauthorized vehicles not equipped with
GPS. It is further alleged that a total of 4,542 quintals of paddy, valued at
Rs. 1,07,59,998/- (calculated at the MSP rate of Rs. 2,639 per quintal),
was dishonestly and deliberately lifted from the procurement centre in
violation of the prescribed rules, thereby causing financial loss by
committing fraud.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is
innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case.
He submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents. He
further submits that the other co-accused person, namely, Murari Sahu
has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated
12.03.2026 in MCRC No. 1204 of 2026. Therefore, the applicant is also
entitled to be released on regular bail on the ground of parity.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of
the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in
the present case. However, she could not dispute the fact that an
identically situated co-accused has already been granted regular bail by
this Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that
the applicant has no criminal antecedents and the other co-accused
persons, namely, Murari Sahu has already been granted regular bail by
this Court vide order dated 12.03.2026 in MCRC No. 1204 of 2026. Also
considering the fact that the charge - sheet has already been submitted
in the present case before the competent Court and the applicant has
been in jail since 22.01.2026 and conclusion of the trial may takes some
more time. Therefore, 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. Let the Bail of the Applicant - Khorbahara Sahu, involved in Crime No.
09/2026 registered at Police Station - Lalpur, District - Mungeli (C.G.),
for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 3(5) of the
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Abhishek
