1 2025:CGHC:46915 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7328 of 2025 Sanjay Bhardwaj S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Bhardwaj Aged About 49 Years Address Krishna Kunj, In-Front of Electricity Office, Rotary Nagar Road, Udaya Society, Tatibandh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Chawki- Siliyari Police Station- Dharsiwa, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.09 .202 5 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 511/2024, registered at Police Station – Dharsiwa, Police Chauki - Siliyari, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(3), 3(5) of Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present F.I.R. dated 18.09.2024 was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by Mr. Santosh Kumar Rai. It was alleged that M/s Roadstar Fleets Pvt. Ltd. and its directors/promoters, including the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.12 18:57:32 +0530 2 present applicant, Puneet Dahiya, were entrusted with the transportation of HR coils from Vimla Siding to the premises of APL Apollo. During stock verification, a shortage was observed, leading to the suspicion of mishandling by M/s Roadstar Fleets Pvt. Ltd. In an internal enquiry and stock inventory, it was found that batch number 2400320024 had been delivered by the transporter to another company. Based on these findings, an offence was registered, and a charge sheet has since been filed. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the co-accused persons, namely, Avinash Chauhan and Puneet Dahiya have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.08.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 5471/2025 and 5691/2025. He also submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent although after this another Crime No. 176/2025 was registered by the same Police Station, the charge-sheet has been filed in this case and the applicant is in jail since 05.08.2025 and trial is likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant but could not dispute the fact that the co-accused persons have already been granted regular bail by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 3 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that the co-accused persons, namely, Avinash Chauhan and Puneet Dahiya have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.08.2025 passed in MCRC Nos. 5471/2025 and 5691/2025, further the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, the applicant has been in jail since 05.08.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be granted regular bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let applicant - Sanjay Bhardwaj, respectively involved in Crime No. 511/2024, registered at Police Station – Dharsiwa, Police Chauki - Siliyari, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 316(3), 3(5) of Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or 4 through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti