1 CGHC010330222026 2026:CGHC:38602 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8045 of 2026 Sanjay Singh S/o Lalji Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o Quarter No. 04/b, Zone- 01, Near Panchsheel School, Khursipar, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O, Police Station- Purani Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.09.2026 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. 277/2026 registered at Police Station- Purani Bhilai, District- Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 317(4) 112, 319 (2), 336 (3), 338, 343(2), 111, 61 (2)(A) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Sections 25 & 26 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Audyogik Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant lodged a written report stating that an agreement had been executed between the Blast Furnace Department of Bhilai Steel Plant and R.D.K. Industries for the transportation of flue dust. It is alleged that on 26.05.2026, information was received regarding the illegal transportation of iron scrap material along with flue dust in vehicles bearing registration Nos. CG-04-QT-8797 and CG-08-AW-1475. Pursuant thereto, an inspection was conducted by the authorized officer of Bhilai Steel Plant on 27.05.2026, during which the aforesaid vehicles were allegedly found carrying iron scrap in an unauthorized and illegal manner. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR bearing Crime No. 277/2026 was registered at Police Station Purani Bhilai for the alleged offences. The applicant/accused was arrested on 15.06.2026 and has been in judicial custody since then. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant is primarily engaged in the business of transportation and that his vehicles had been given on rent to the contractors under valid rent agreements for loading and unloading of articles as per the instructions of the respective contractors, who also paid the rent directly to the applicant. The applicant had no knowledge regarding the nature of the articles being loaded or transported by the contractors, and the alleged unauthorized transportation of iron scrap was carried out by the co-accused without the knowledge, consent or involvement of the applicant. It is 3 further submitted that the applicant has been implicated merely on the ground that the vehicles and certain properties stand in his name, whereas mere ownership of the vehicles or properties does not, by itself, establish his criminal liability or involvement in the alleged offence. He further submits that the premises of Bhilai Steel Plant are under continuous surveillance by the CISF, Vigilance Department and State Police and are covered by an extensive CCTV network, therefore, the alleged unauthorized removal and transportation of scrap material without detection raises serious doubt regarding the prosecution story. It is also submitted that no incriminating material has been seized from the possession of the applicant, nothing remains to be recovered from him, and he has no criminal antecedents. He further submits that the applicant is suffering from various ailments and requires continuous medical attention, and that his health has been adversely affected during his incarceration since 15.06.2026. It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. Nos. 7462/2026, 7342/2026 and 7281/2026 and M.Cr.C.A. Nos. 1304/2026 and 1244/2026, and the case of the present applicant stands on the same footing. He submits that the present applicant is entitled to the same benefit of parity, particularly when there is no specific allegation or material demonstrating his knowledge of, or active participation in, the alleged illegal transportation of iron scrap. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. He also submits that the allegations against the present applicant are serious in nature and his involvement cannot be brushed aside at this stage. It is submitted that the applicant is a named accused in the FIR and his role is specifically reflected in the prosecution case, whereas the similarly situated co-accused relied upon by the applicant for claiming parity were not named in the FIR and were subsequently implicated during the course of investigation. Therefore, the applicant cannot claim parity with those co-accused merely on the basis of the orders granting them bail. He further submits that the vehicles allegedly used for the unauthorized transportation of iron scrap are connected with the applicant and the fact that the vehicles stand in his name assumes significance in the context of the allegations. It is further submitted that the defence taken by the applicant regarding the vehicles having been given on rent to the contractors is a matter of evidence and cannot be conclusively accepted at the stage of consideration of bail. Therefore, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations and the material available on record, and the fact that though the learned State counsel has opposed the bail application and has rightly pointed out that the co-accused who 5 have already been granted bail were not named in the FIR, whereas the present applicant is a named accused, however, the said circumstance by itself cannot be determinative of the applicant’s entitlement to bail. This Court has also taken into consideration the fact that no incriminating material has been seized or recovered from the possession of the applicant and that nothing further remains to be recovered from him. The applicant is in jail since 15.06.2026 and the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. The defence taken by the applicant regarding the vehicles having been given on rent to the contractors is a matter to be considered during trial, however, at this stage, the continued incarceration of the applicant, particularly when the investigation stands concluded and no recovery is to be made from him, does not appear warranted. Thus, without commenting upon the merits of the case, and considering the period of detention, filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, and absence of any recovery from the applicant, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the applicant - Sanjay Singh, involved in Crime No. 277/2026 registered at Police Station- Purani Bhilai, District- Durg, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 317(4) 112, 319(2), 336(3), 338, 343(2), 111, 61(2)(A) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Sections 25 & 26 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Audyogik Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, be released on bail on his 6 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 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 7 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan