Order 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 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 is not barred, and observed as under: "2....But an order refusing an application for bail does not necessarily preclude another, on a later occasion, giving more materials, further, developments and different considerations. While we surely must set store by this circumstance, we cannot accede to the faint plea that we are, barred from second consideration' at a later stage. An interim direction is not a conclusive adjudication, and updated" reconsideration is not over turning an earlier negation. While we surely must set store by this circumstance, we cannot accede to the faint plea that we are, barred from second consideration' at a later stage. An interim direction is not a conclusive adjudication, and updated" reconsideration is not over turning an earlier negation. In this view, we entertain the application and - evaluate the merits pro and con." 6.2. Further, in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292 the Supreme Court has held that there must be substantial change to maintain the second bail petition and observed as under: "Once that application was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overuling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact-situation, which would mean a substantial change having a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no consequence." 6.3. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Another, 2005 (2) SCC 42 has held that if there is a change in the facts situation, then in-spite of earlier application having been rejected, second bail application can be entertained, and observed as under: "18. It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee. However, Article 21 which guarantees the above right also contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by procedure established by law. Under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which are non bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 since the same is authorised by law. But even persons accused of non bailable offences are entitled for bail if the court concerned comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that in spite of the existence of prima facie case there is a need to release such persons on bail where fact situations require it to do so. In that process a person whose application for enlargement on bail is once rejected is not precluded from filing a subsequent application for grant of bail if there is a change in the fact situation. In such cases if the circumstances then prevailing requires that such persons to be released on bail, in spite of his earlier applications being rejected, the courts can do so." 6.4. Likewise, recently in case of Sanjay Chandra, AIR 1978 SC 527 (Supra), the Supreme Court has held that change in circumstances like framing of charge and commencement of trial is a good ground to entertain second bail application and observed as under: "19. Let us first deal with a minor issue canvassed by Mr. Raval, learned ASG. It is submitted that this Court has refused to entertain the Special Leave Petition filed by one of the co-accused [Sharad Kumar Vs. CBI (supra)] and, therefore, there is no reason or change in the circumstance to take a different view in the case of the appellants who are also charge-sheeted for the same offence. We are not impressed by this argument. In the aforesaid petition, the petitioner was before this Court before framing of charges by the Trial Court. Now the charges are framed and the trial has commenced. We cannot compare the earlier and the present proceedings and conclude that there are no changed circumstances and reject these petitions. XXX XXX 46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI." 7. The Gujrat High Court in case of State of Gujrat Vs. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI." 7. The Gujrat High Court in case of State of Gujrat Vs. Alpeshbhai Navinbhai Patel, 2004 GLH (24) 754 it has been held that second bail application can be entertained in following manners: "Normally, the substantial change in the circumstances are being considered stagewise, i.e. (i) at the stage of considering the matter for granting anticipatory bail, (ii) at the stage of considering the matter for regular bail before the chargesheet when the investigation is in progress and (iii) after filing of chargesheet and after completion of investigation........" 8. In case of Prasenjit Basu Malick Vs. State of Orissa, 1997 Cr.L.J. 902, the High Court of Orissa has held as under: "3..........Moreover, law is well settled that rejection of a bail application at an earlier stage does not preclude an accused person to file a fresh application, keeping in view the change in circumstances." 9. Further, in case of Narendra Kumar Dhir Vs. Republic of India 1997 (1) Crimes 357 the High Court of Orissa has held as under: "........Law is well settled that rejection of bail application on earlier occasion does not stand as bar for consideration of subsequent application for bail. A second application for bail giving more details and on the basis of subsequent developments can be considered." 10. Bearing in mind the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, it is quite vivid that second bail application can be entertained upon establishment of change in circumstances like filing of charge-sheet, on completion of investigation, framing of charges and commencement of trial etc. Bearing in mind the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, it is quite vivid that second bail application can be entertained upon establishment of change in circumstances like filing of charge-sheet, on completion of investigation, framing of charges and commencement of trial etc. If the facts of present case are examined in the light of aforesaid decisions, it would appear that when the first bail application was considered and decided by this court on merits on 05.01.2015, the investigation was in progress and thereafter only on 20.01.2015 charge-sheet has been filed by the prosecution with a copy of same to the applicant/accused and upon filing of such charge-sheet, the applicant has approached before this court in second bail application with more material which is certainly a change in circumstances which entitles the accused/applicant to maintain second bail application and such second application for bail is quite maintainable in law, and as such, the objection of state counsel on this count deserves to be and is hereby rejected. 11. This brings me to the next question whether the applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail. 12. At this stage, it would be pertinent to notice the ratio of law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in case of Susanta Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal, 2012 (2) SCC 680 , in which it has been held that once the charge-sheet is filed, tampering with the evidence or investigation is no longer relevant, and held as under: "17. As indicated hereinabove, the parameters laid down by this Court for considering grant of bail to an accused include the likelihood of his absconsion and tampering with the evidence or the witnesses or even the investigation. Tampering with the evidence or the investigation is no longer relevant since charge-sheet has already been filed in the case." 13. As indicated hereinabove, the parameters laid down by this Court for considering grant of bail to an accused include the likelihood of his absconsion and tampering with the evidence or the witnesses or even the investigation. Tampering with the evidence or the investigation is no longer relevant since charge-sheet has already been filed in the case." 13. Coming to the facts of the case, it is quite apparent that applicant is transporter of Coal and the Trucks in question were either hired by him or owned by his wife and the delivery taken of different quantity of coal in 12 trucks were required to be transported from SECL Rajgamar area to SKS Ispat Ltd. Raipur, in which, four Trucks were allegedly found in Gurukripa Coal Depot, Sargaon unloading the coal, out of which, one Truck is said to have been seized from the applicant's possession at Gurukripa Coal Depot, Sargaon, which the applicant has disclaimed to be owned and said to be owned by one Surendra Singh i.e. owner of Gurukripa Coal Depot, who is still absconding. Apart from this, in statement of P.N. Mishra, General Manager of SKS Ispat Ltd. recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has not said anything against the applicant, but has alleged against the drivers of Trucks as they (Drivers) in connivance with the owner of Gurukripa Coal Depot have sought to misappropriate the coal to be delivered to SKS Isptat Ltd. Raipur. 14. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that charge sheet has already been filed and the applicant is in custody since 05.12.2014 and no further custodial interrogation is required and also keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in afore-stated cases, I consider it a fit case, in which, the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail. 15. Accordingly, second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance as and when directed, subject to following conditions: that the accused/applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the concerned Investigating Officer as and when required. 50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance as and when directed, subject to following conditions: that the accused/applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the concerned Investigating Officer as and when required. that the accused/applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; that the accused/applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and