1 CGHC010257322026 2026:CGHC:28213 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6050 of 2026 Shaukeen Khan S/o Bhutta Khan Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Moreda, Mauakhurd, P.S. Maalekheda, District- Alwar, (Rajasthan) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Urla, Raipur (Cg) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumit Singh, Additional Advocate General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08/07/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 138/2026 registered at Police Station Urla, Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 318(4), 316(3), 3(5) of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a written complaint on 11.04.2026 alleging that a consignment of 43 MT of medium carbon ferro manganese, entrusted for transportation from Raipur to Bhiwandi, was substituted with substandard material during transit. On the basis of the said complaint, the present applicant, who was driving the vehicle carrying the consignment, was implicated and arrested on 20.04.2026. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that the complainant himself, the alleged incident is stated to have occurred sometime between 14.03.2026 and 25.03.2026, whereas the instant FIR came to be lodged only on 11.04.2026. Thus, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in setting the criminal law into motion, which casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. He also submits that a bare perusal of the complaint itself reveals that the present applicant was merely employed as a driver for transporting the consignment under the instructions of his employer. Being a barely educated person, the applicant had neither the knowledge nor the expertise to identify the nature or quality of the minerals being transported. Consequently, the allegation that the applicant was involved in 3 substituting or mixing the consignment with substandard material is wholly baseless, as he merely transported the goods that had been loaded into the vehicle by the owner. The applicant is in jail since 20.04.2026, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant allegedly while acting as the driver of the vehicle transporting the consignment, he was involved in the substitution of 43 MT of medium carbon ferro manganese with substandard material during transit, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 20.04.2026, the fact that though the applicant allegedly while acting as the driver of the vehicle transporting the consignment, he was involved in the substitution of 43 MT of medium carbon ferro manganese with substandard material during transit, but considering the fact that the applicant has no 4 criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Shaukeen Khan, involved in Crime No. 138/2026 registered at Police Station Urla, Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(3), 3(5) of BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local 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 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 applicant 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 5 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. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil