Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12815 (CHH)

RAMKUMAR ANJAN v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/2012/2025 · 2025-03-12

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:12345 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2012 of 2025 Ramkumar Anjan S/o Mannuram Aged About 50 Years R/o Diprapara, Karhibazar, Police Station City Kotwali Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Lata Naik, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.03.2025 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 19/2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of C.G. Excise Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that as per secret information received from the informant, the Police of Police Station City AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Kotwali Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) seized 5.760 bulk liters of illicit liquor from the possession of the applicant, thereafter, offence has been registered against the applicant. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 05.02.2025, therefore this second bail application is filed on the ground that since the seizure witnesses and other witnesses have turned hostile before the learned trial Court, charge- sheet has already been filed, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has 4 criminal antecedents, out of which, 01 case is under the IPC, in which applicant has already been acquitted and rest of the three are under the Excise Act, which are still pending and the applicant is in jail since 06.01.2025, hence, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant has 04 criminal antecedents, out of which, 01 case is under the IPC and rest of the 03 cases are under the Excise Act, which shows that the applicant is a habitual offender, as such, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, as the seizure witnesses and other witnesses have 3 turned hostile, the same cannot be a ground for releasing the applicant on bail as the same amounts to only tampering with the evidence. 7. From perusal of the records, it transpires that this is the second bail application of the applicant and first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2025 in MCRC No. 1030 of 2025 on the ground that applicant has 03 criminal antecedents under the Excise Act, which are pending, which shows that the applicant is a habitual offender. As such, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant- Ramkumar Anjan, involved in Crime No. 19/2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali Balodabazar, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of C.G. Excise Act, is rejected at this stage. 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil