NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5032 of 2025 Dilip Suryavanshi S/o Sudama Suryavanshi Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Barghat, Seoni, District Seoni (M.P.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Urla, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 13/2025, registered at Police Station Urla, District – Raipur(C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(3), 61(2), 338(3) and 340 (2) of B.N.S.S. 2023. 2. As per prosecution story in brief is that the co-accused namely Rahul @ Rajesh @ Harshit and Sohail Ansari changed the number plate of the vehicle and on the basis of changed number Iron Rod was picked form Raipur for delivering the same to Gujrat. It is alleged that the three VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.07.02 18:37:29 +0530 accused persons instead of delivering the goods to the desired placed sold the same in midway. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicant is neither the driver of the vehicle nor owner of the vehicle and in fact the other co-accused persons changed the number plate of the vehicle and the Iron Rod was sold by the main absconding main accused namely Sohail Ansari. He further submits that the accused had earlier preferred bail application before the learned court below which was rejected and thereafter submission of the charge-sheet the second bail application has rejected by the court below by order dated 12.06.2025 and he is in jail since 02.03.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant opposes the bail application and submits that the present applicant has two criminal antecedents; as such, he is not entitled to the grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, the material available in the case diary, and the fact that the applicant, along with the co-accused being the driver and cleaner loaded 11.910 tonnes of iron rods worth ₹7,16,744/-, but failed to deliver them to the designated address and instead facilitated their sale to other persons for Rs. 5 lakhs, which has been recovered from him, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting regular bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant - Dilip Suryavanshi, involved in Crime No. 13/2025, registered at Police Station Urla, District – Raipur(C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(3), 61(2), 338(3) and 340 (2) of B.N.S.S. 2023, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav