1 2025:CGHC:12839 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2090 of 2025 Sudhir Kumar Pandey S/o Late Dindayal Pandey Aged About 40 Years Occupation- Business, R/o Mohalla- Chitra Mandir Gali, Deviganj Road, Ambikapur, P/s And Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Excise Circle - Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.03.2025 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. 311/2025, registered at Police Station : Excise Circle, Ambikapur District- Sarguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(1) (क), 34(2), 59 (क) and 36 of the C.G. Excise Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Police of Police Excise Circle, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.), received an KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 information from the informant and on the basis of the said information conducted raid and have seized 16.230 liters of English Liquor from the possession of the applicant. Thereafter, Police has registered the aforesaid offence against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the said liquor was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant. It is further argued by him that under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years. He further submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has filed before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 17.01.2025 and the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents which has been explained in the bail application and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular 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 been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents, out of which one case is under the NDPS Act of the year 2018 and further from the possession of the present applicant i.e. 16.230 liters of English Liquor was seized and as such he is a habitual offender therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, 3 nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents, out of which one case is under the NDPS Act of the year 2018 and also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the quantity of liquor seized from the possession of the applicant i.e. 16.230 liters of English Liquor and he is in jail since 17.01.2025 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, Sudhir Kumar Pandey, involved in Crime No. 311/2025, registered at Police Station : Excise Circle, Ambikapur District- Sarguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(1) (क), 34(2), 59 (क) and 36 of the C.G. Excise Act, be released on bail on 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 cause, the trial court may proceed against him under 4 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