Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The applicant has filed this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with crime No. 286/2014 registered at Police Station, Hirri, District Mungeli, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 407, 420, 120-B, 379 & 411/34 of the IPC. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present applicant in the capacity of Transporter hired 12 Trucks and took delivery of different qualities of Coal from SECL Rajgamar area for transporting the coal to M/s. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd. Siltara, Raipur, but only eight trucks reached the destination and remaining four trucks including truck bearing registration No. CG-04-JC-9841 were found at Gurukripa Coal Depot, Sargaon, with coal in question. It is further case of the applicant that said truck No. CG-04-JC-9841 with coal was seized on 04.12.2014 from the possession of the present applicant.

2. Shri Kanak Tiwari, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that first bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed by this court on merit on 05.01.2015, thereafter, there is change in circumstances as charge-sheet has been filed on 20.01.2015 i.e. after rejection of the first bail application. He would further submit that applicant is a transporter and he has been arrested for such an offence which has not committed as the Truck bearing registration No. CG-04-JC-9841 which was allegedly seized from his possession was owned by one Surendra Singh i.e. owner of Gurukripa Coal Depot, Sargaon. He would also submit that charge-sheet does not contain any evidence at all against the applicant as FIR clearly states that concerned driver of said Truck has committed the offence in collusion with owner of Gurukripa Coal Depot, Sargaon. He also submits that P.N. Mishra, claiming to be General Manager of SKS Ispat Ltd. has stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that drivers of three Trucks and one Trailer have committed the aforesaid offences. He would next submit that after the said incident, SKS Ispat Ltd. has further issued two work orders in favour of present applicant for transportation of Coal from Banki and Rajgamar depot of SECL which clearly indicates that applicant has not committed any such offence and he has falsely been implicated in the case. He would lastly submit that since the charge-sheet has been filed and no custodial interrogation is required and question of tampering with the prosecution witnesses also does not arise, the applicant be released on bail as he is in jail from 05.12.2014. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, 2012 (1) SCC 40.

3. Shri SP Kale, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State would submit that first bail application was considered and decided on merits on 05.01.2015 and therefore second bail application is not entertainable as there is no change in circumstances warranting consideration of second bail application. He would also submit that one Truck loaded with coal has been seized by the Investigating Officer from the possession of applicant which goes to show that applicant is actively involved in commission of said offence.

4. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned and case diary with utmost circumspection.

5. The first question for consideration would be, whether the first bail application having been rejected on merit, second bail application filed would be maintainable after submission of charge sheet?

6. The question of maintainability of second bail application upon establishing the change of circumstances is no longer res integra and stand concluded by decision of their Lordships of Supreme Court in following cases:

6.1. In a decision reported in Babu Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 527, the Supreme Court has held that updated consideration with further development i