Allowed

Athmakuri Veerbhadra Rao v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Sept 2026MCRC/7603/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order granting regular bail to the applicant, a godown owner, in a commercial dispute case involving unpaid goods under BNS sections 3(5) and 318(4). The court considered his criminal antecedents and granted bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant directed to execute personal bond for Rs. 50,000 with one surety for release on bail.

Athmakuri Veerbhadra Rao Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

NIRMALA RAO

CGHC010312212026

2026:CGHC:40208

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MCRC No. 7603 of 2026

¶8

1 - Athmakuri Veerbhadra Rao S/o Narayana Rao Aged About 48 Years R/o Saripallivani Palem, P.S. Nakkapalli, Dist. - Ankapalli, Andhra Pradesh

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S.- Bhatapara Rural, District- Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Applicant : Shri Vibhor Goverdhan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy.G.A.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶15

15.09.2026

¶16

Heard.

¶17

1 ) The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.290/2025, registered at Police Station Bhatapara Rural, District – Baloda Bazar (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 3(5) of BNS 2023 and 318(4) of BNS 2023.

¶18

¶19

2 ) As per the case of the prosecution, one Radhakishan placed an order for the supply of 120 quintals of poha before the complainant, who is also a broker. The complainant arranged the order from Harisharan Industries, Surajpura, and the bills were generated in the names of two firms, namely, Om Traders, Rampalli, Hyderabad, and SVS Traders, Hyderabad. The goods were supplied by both the firms, and 120 quintals of poha were delivered to the godown of the present applicant. It is alleged that the present applicant failed to make payment for the 120 quintals of poha supplied by the two firms. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered the offence against the present applicant and two other co-accused persons.

¶20

3 ) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there was a business transaction between the complainant and the present applicant. He would contend that the present applicant never placed any order for the supply of 120 quintals of poha. He would submit that the applicant is the owner of the godown, where 120 quintals of poha was stored, and that there is no involvement of the present applicant in the commission of the offence. He would also submit that the chargesheet has been filed, the applicant is in jail since 20.7.2026, and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant.

¶21

4 ) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that 120 quintals of poha was supplied by the complainant and the present applicant failed to make payment of the consideration amount. He would further submit that there are two criminal antecedents against the present applicant, one registered under

¶22

¶23

Section 9(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Gambling Act in the year 2022 and another under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC in the year 2019. He would submit that the application deserves to be dismissed.

¶24

5 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶25

6 ) Having considered the fact that there was a business transaction between the parties, that the charge-sheet has been filed, that the applicant is in jail since 20.7.2026, that the applicant is the owner of the godown where 120 quintals of poha was stored, and that the order for the supply of 120 quintals of poha was not placed by the present applicant, and further considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant, namely, an offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC registered in the year 2019 and an offence under the Gambling Act registered in the year 2022, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant.

¶26

7 ) Accordingly, the bail application filed by applicant is allowed and i t is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court, he shall be released on bail, on following conditions :-

¶27

(i) 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,

¶28

(ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and

¶29

(iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of

¶30

¶31

the trial,

¶32

(iv) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.

¶33

The observations made in the course of this order are only for considering the case of the applicant on the application for grant of regular bail. The concerned trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by the observations made in the course of this order.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶36

Nimmi

Athmakuri Veerbhadra Rao v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Athmakuri Veerbhadra Rao v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases