1 2025:CGHC:2265 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 54 of 2025 1 - Ramakant Maurya @ Romi S/o Shri Bandhulal Aged About 37 Years R/o Madhuban Road Dayalband Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Ratanpur District-Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 14.01.2025 1. This is the second bail application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 filed by the accused/applicant for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.533/2022 registered at Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 407, 411 and 34 of IPC. The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide its order dated 09.12.2022 passed in MCRCA No.1569 of 2022 and other connected matters. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Santosh Singh, Manager of Fil company lodge, that the driver Basand Kumar Maravi of the Vehicle No. C.G. 12 S 4454 was coming to the Fil Company bringing Coal from Gevra Coal Mine but before unloading the Coal in Fil Company, the driver Basant Kumar Maravi went to the Maurya Coal Depot and unloaded the Coal and after unloading the coal, the driver loaded the mixed Coal with the 2 help of Sharad Rathore, Ajay Singh and Ramakant Maurya (present applicant). The driver reached the Fil Company then on checking, he disclosed about mixed coal and also stated that he can show the place where the coal has been unloaded. After that an FIR has been registered against four accused. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is no legally admissible evidence against the applicant. He further submits that other co-accused has already been released on bail by the Courts below, therefore, his bail application may also be allowed. 4. State Counsel opposes that application and submits that looking to the seriousness of the allegations made against the present applicant, he is not entitled for bail. 5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with due care. 6. Considering facts of the case, rival submissions made by both the counsel for the parties and also keeping in mind the seriousness of the allegations, role of the applicant, his custodial interrogation may be required and he has withdrawn the first anticipatory bail application after arguing at length. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has no case for anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Saxena