1 2025:CGHC:1262 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 119 of 2025 Suresh Kumar S/o Ruplal Thuriya Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Ghathora, At Present R/o Kalgideepa, C.G. Dhabha, Police Chowki- Kanakbira, Police Station- City Kotwali, Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The OfÏce In Charge Of Police Chowki- Kanakbira, Police Station- City Kotwali, Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.01.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 834/2024, registered at Police Station : City Kotwali, Sarangarh, District-Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) and 59-A of the C.G. Excise Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.12.2024, as per KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 secret information received from the informant, on the basis of such information, the police ofÏcials conducted raid and have seized 68.280 liters of liquor from the possession of the applicant which was kept in Maruti Omni Car. Thereafter, Police has registered an offence punishable under Section 34(2) and 59-A of the C.G. Excise Act against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent under the Excise Act of the year 2023, in which the applicant has already been acquitted by the learned trial Court. He further submits that under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 23.12.2024 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, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents under the Excise Act of the years 2008 and 2011. She further submits that from the possession of the applicant 68.280 liters of liquor was seized, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- 3 diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant has three criminal antecedents under the Excise Act of the years 2008, 2011 and 2023 out of which in one case of the year 2023, the applicant has been acquitted and rest two cases are old and stale and also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and he is in jail since 23.12.2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. 7. Let applicant, Suresh Kumar, involved in Crime No. 834/2024, registered at Police Station : City Kotwali, Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) and 59-A of the C.G. Excise Act, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two 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 sufÏcient 4 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 statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal