Chattisgarh High Court
Raju Patwa vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 May, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:20508
Digitally
signed by
ARPAN
ARPAN SRIVASTAVA
NAFR
SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.05.01
18:53:41
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 652 of 2026
1 - Raju Patwa S/o Radheshyam Patwa Aged About 40 Years Occupation -
Incharge Manager Sewa Sahkari Samiti Panduka Tahsil Khairagarh District
Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai Chhattisgarh R/o Village Madrakohi Post
Saloni P.S. Khairagarh District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai Chhattisgarh.
2 - Santosh Goutam S/o Late Laxman Singh Aged About 59 Years
Occupation - Samiti Manager Sewa Sahkari Samiti Dilippur Tahsil Khaigarh
District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai Chhattisgarh R/o Village Sandi Post
And P.S. Khairagarh District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai Chhattisgarh
... Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Khairagarh District Khairagarh
Chhuikhadan Gandai Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Applicants : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate
For State/ Respondent : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
01/05/2026
1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who 2 is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.520/2025 registered at Police Station - P.S. Khairagarh District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 7(1), 7(2) of Chhattisgarh Essential Service Maintaince and Disconnection Prevention Act 1979 (in short ESMA 1979).
2. That, the prosecution story, in brief, is that the State Government, vide order dated 14.11.2025, enforced the Chhattisgarh Essential Service Maintenance and Disconnection Prevention Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'ESMA, 1979') during the paddy procurement season, whereby all employees engaged in paddy procurement were duty- bound to discharge their official duties. It is alleged that the present applicants remained absent from their duties during the said period, which caused disruption and difficulties in the paddy procurement process. Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner, Sahkarita evam Panjiyak Sahakari Sansthaye, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.), namely Rajkishore Jha, lodged a written complaint against the present applicants on 17.11.2025, leading to registration of the present offence.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and were working as employees of Sewa Sahkari Samitis in District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.). It is submitted that due to unresolved issues regarding paddy shortage caused by delay in lifting and natural factors, the Union called for a strike w.e.f. 12.11.2025, and the applicants acted in accordance with the said decision. It is further submitted that upon assurance by the authorities, the applicants 3 resumed duties from 20.11.2025 and even the competent authority recommended cancellation of the FIR. The applicants have no previous criminal antecedents and the offence is triable by JMFC with limited punishment. Therefore, he submits that the present applicant is also entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.
4. "Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the applicants deliberately abstained from their duties during the paddy procurement season despite enforcement of the provisions of the ESMA, 1979, thereby causing disruption in an essential public service. It is further submitted that the applicants cannot take the plea of strike to justify their absence, as the Act expressly prohibits such conduct. The material on record discloses a prima facie case against the applicants, and their conduct has adversely affected public interest. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled to the benefit of bail and the application deserves to be rejected.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the role attributed to the applicants, and the fact that the applicants had participated in the strike pursuant to the decision of their Union and have subsequently resumed their duties, coupled with the fact that the offences are triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and carry limited punishment, and further that the applicants have no previous criminal antecedents and there appears to be no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, this Court is inclined to allow the present application.
4
7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant No.1- Raju Patwa and applicant No.2- Santosh Goutam, on executing a personal bond and one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-
(a) The applicant 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) The applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.
(c) The applicant 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 their 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) The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Arpan