1 2025:CGHC:15896 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2667 of 2025 Mukhdev Vishwakarma S/o Bhramdev Vishwakarma Aged About 38 Years R/o Namnakala, Ambikapur, Police Station- Gandhinagar, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.04.2025 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. 695/2024 registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Police of Police Station Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) received a RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 secret information through the informant and on the basis of the said information, a raid was conducted and the Police has seized a total of 10 litres of Mahuwa liquor from the possession of the present applicant, thereafter, the applicant was arrested by the Police and the crime was registered against the applicant. 3. Earlier the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.01.2025 passed in MCRC No. 508/2025, on the ground that he has 2 criminal antecedents under the Excise Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that a total of two prosecution witnesses have been turned hostile before the trial Court. The applicant is in jail since 25.11.2024 and the conclusion of this case will take a long time, hence, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and perused the case diary and submits that there are 2 criminal antecedents of the applicant under the Excise Act and he happens to be a habitual offender, and on the same ground the earlier the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court. Therefore, this bail application is also liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all the documents available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and there 3 are two criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant under the Excise Act and on the same ground the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court, he is a habitual offender, and he has misused the bail granted to him earlier, 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 it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 8. Accordingly, the Second bail application of the applicant – Mukhdev Vishwakarma filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, involved in Crime No. 695/2024 registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, is rejected at this stage. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Rajshekhar