SANJAY SINGH vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

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
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
Sections 25 & 26 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Audyogik Suraksha
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
Adhiniyam, 1990.

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