1 2025:CGHC:48621 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1456 of 2025  Satnam Singh, S/o Shri Balveer Singh, Aged About 35 Years R/o Veer Savarkar Nagar, Hirapur, Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Nitin Yadu and Mr. Sharad Prakash Yadav, Advocates. For Respondent. : Mr. Afroj Khan, P.L. for the State. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey (Order on Board) 22/09/2025 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. This second application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) has been filed by the applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.66/2020 registered at Police Station – Singhoda, Mahasamund (C.G.) for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE 2 468, 471, 34 of the IPC. 4. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the present applicant along with co-accused Sonu Singh have prepared forged and fabricated documents in respect of truck bearing registration No.CG-04-JD- 1539. Based on this, offence was registered against the present applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR has been registered on 24.08.2020 and more than 05 years have rolled on but charge sheet against the applicant has not yet been filed. He further submits that the applicant is truck owner and no document has been seized from him. There is no documentary evidence against him showing his direct involvement in the crime in question, therefore, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the anticipatory bail application submits that vide order dated 30.06.2021, first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merit and the applicant is not co-operating in the investigation. Therefore, he may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that after dismissal of first bail application of the applicant on 30.06.2021 on merit, the applicant has not co-operated in the investigation and there is no change in circumstances in the case, I do not find the present case to be fit where the applicant be exteneded privilege of anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail is dismissed dismissed. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge pekde