Balaghat Rice Diversion Case: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Rice Mill Association President, Citing No Recovery and No Antecedents

The applicant, President of the Rice Mill Association, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in Crime No. 272/2026, Police Station Waraseoni, District Balaghat, registered under Sections 316(3), 3(5), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 318(3) and 318(4) of the BNS (Para 1). The prosecution alleges that rice released by FCI Navegaon and CWC Garra for ethanol plants – principally AVJ Agrico Pvt. Ltd., Borgaon, Chhindwara – was diverted to local rice mills and recycled into custom milling, with 64 truckloads involved, a Collector-appointed SIT, about 2,000 FCI-stencilled empty sacks seized from Sancheti Rice Mill, CCTV footage, and forged 'non-returnable passes' sent to the police (Para 2). The applicant, not named in the FIR, argued that his name surfaced only through memorandum statements of co-accused, that nothing was recovered from him, that the ingredients of the offences were not made out against him, and that he was entitled to parity with co-accused – including the directors of AVJ Agrico and the owners of Sancheti Rice Mill – already granted anticipatory bail (Para 3). The State opposed the application (Para 4). Without commenting on the merits, the Court granted anticipatory bail, citing the absence of any recovery from the applicant and his lack of criminal antecedents, on a personal bond and surety of Rs. 10 lakh each, with conditions including passport surrender (Paras 6–8).

Key Proposition: Where nothing incriminating has been recovered from an accused who has no criminal antecedents, anticipatory bail may be granted even in a large-scale diversion case, subject to stringent conditions such as a high bond, surrender of passport and availability for interrogation.

Background / Synopsis :

• On 05.06.2026, the Junior Supply Officer, Waraseoni, reported that during a surprise inspection on 03.06.2026 a truck (CG04JD-3147) loaded with 490 sacks (242.55 quintals) of government rice was found parked about 500 metres inside Sancheti Rice Mill (Para 2).
• The driver said the rice was loaded at FCI Navegaon for AVJ Agrico's ethanol plant at Borgaon, Chhindwara; the FCI Depot Manager confirmed it had been handed to the plant's authorised representative, Rahul Pratap, who later left the police station without giving his statement (Para 2).
• Crime No. 272/2026 was registered against Rahul Pratap, the driver and the mill owner; the Collector, Balaghat formed an SIT on 09.06.2026 (Para 2).
• Investigation alleged: about 2,000 empty FCI-stencilled sacks of other mills seized from Sancheti Rice Mill; CCTV showing another truck unloading on 02.06.2026; 64 truckloads (51 from CWC Garra, 13 from FCI Navegaon) released for the Borgaon plant but unloaded at local mills; and 12 forged 'non-returnable passes' sent to the police by a transporter, Ubaid Khan. Forgery sections were then added (Para 2).
• The applicant, not named in the FIR, is alleged to have acted as a facilitator; the Sessions Court had refused him anticipatory bail (Para 3).

Issues For Consideration :

Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in the alleged diversion of government rice meant for ethanol plants.

Submissions Of Parties :

• Applicant:

He is entitled to parity with co-accused already granted anticipatory bail by the High Court, including the directors of AVJ Agrico and Saurabh and Gambhir Sancheti; the Sessions Court's distinction between mill owners and an alleged middleman is merely descriptive (Para 3).

He is not named in the FIR; his name surfaced only through memorandum statements of co-accused, which are not substantive evidence (Sections 23 and 24 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P.; Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar) (Para 3).

Nothing was recovered from him, and nothing links him to the seized truck, the CCTV footage or the forged passes; the High Court's order of 12.08.2026 treated these very circumstances as favouring bail (Para 3).

The ingredients of criminal breach of trust (no entrustment; Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 INSC 1151), forgery and cheating are not made out against him (Para 3).

The fear of witness tampering rests only on his position as Association President; key evidence is already seized; he will cooperate and accept conditions (Para 3).

• State:

Opposed the application and prayed for its rejection (Para 4).

Court's Observations & Analysis :

• Re: Grant of anticipatory bail

The Court considered the totality of circumstances, in particular that no incriminating article or material was recovered from the applicant and that he has no criminal antecedents (Para 6).

Held: These circumstances weigh in favour of the applicant, and his custodial detention is not warranted; anticipatory bail allowed without comment on the merits. (Paras 6–7)

Notable Observations:

"The absence of any recovery from the applicant and the fact that he has no previous criminal antecedents are relevant circumstances which weigh in favour of the applicant while considering the present application for anticipatory bail." (Para 6)

Decision & Directions :

Anticipatory bail application allowed. (Para 7)

On arrest, the applicant shall be released on a personal bond of Rs. 10,00,000 with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer / Arresting Authority. (Para 7)

Conditions (Para 8):

1. Make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

2. Not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the complainant or witnesses.

3. Surrender his passport to the Investigating Officer.

4. Not commit a similar offence.

5. Abide by the conditions in sub-section (3) of the section cited.

Note on the record: the conditions are imposed 'under Section 480(2) of Cr.P.C.' – the corresponding provision for anticipatory bail is Section 482(2) of the BNSS; Para 6 refers to 'continued custodial detention' although the applicant was not in custody; the transporter is named both 'Ubaid Khan' and 'Ubain Khan'. The Court's reasoning is confined to Paras 6–7; it does not separately address parity or the memorandum statements.

Separate Opinions: None.

Legal Provisions Discussed & Precedents Cited :

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 482 (anticipatory bail), 179, 183, 94, 105 (investigation steps referred to).
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 3(5), 316(3), 318(3), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2).
• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Sections 23 and 24 (as urged by the applicant).
• Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 159 – Cited by the applicant.
• Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184 – Cited by the applicant.
• Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 INSC 1151 – Cited by the applicant.

Case Details :

• Case / Party Name: Anand Kumar Thakre v. State of Madhya Pradesh
• Case Number(s): Misc. Criminal Case No. 50265 of 2026 [Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:85797] (CNR MPHC010755432026)
• Coram / Judges: Ajay Kumar Nirankari, J. – Single Judge
• Counsel Appearances: For the Applicant: Shri Siddharth Sharma, Advocate, with Shri Shubham Manchani. For the State: Shri C.M. Tiwari, Government Advocate.

Disclaimer: This summary is an editorial aid and does not form part of the judgment. Refer to the original judgment before citing.