Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12577 (CHH)

RAJENDRA SAHU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/1954/2025 · 2025-03-10

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:11801 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1954 of 2025 Rajendra Sahu S/o Late Duj Ram Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Jaroundha, Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Chandra Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10/03/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 48/2025 registered at Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.01.2025, as per secret information received from the informant, the Police of Police AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) found the applicant in possession of 5.250 bulk liter of illicit liquor, thereafter, offence has been registered against the applicant. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The mandatory provisions with regard to search and seizure have not been followed by the Police in this case. He further submits that the under Section 34(2) of the Chattisgarh Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 30.01.2025, so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, applicant has 11 criminal antecedents under the Excise Act, out of which, 5 cases have been dispose of and 6 cases are still pending, further the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant has 11 criminal antecedents under the Excise Act and the quantity of liquor seized i.e. 5.250 bulk liter of Mahua liquor, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and in the present case applicant has 11 criminal 3 antecedents under the Excise Act, out of which, 5 cases have already been disposed of, but 6 cases are still pending against him, as such, he is a habitual offender further he has misused the bail granted to him earlier, and that the quantity of liquor seized is 5.250 bulk liters of illicit liquor and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Rajendra Sahu, involved in Crime No. 48/2025 registered at Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, is rejected. 7. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil