1 2025:CGHC:15681 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2600 of 2025 1 - Raghav Shrivas S/o Sanju Shrivas Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No.3, Gandao Police Station- Gandai, District K.C.G. Chhattisgarh. 2 - Omkar Singh Baghel S/o Late Gulab Singh Baghel Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No.15, Pandariya, Gandai Police Station- Gandai, District - K.C.G. Chhattisgarh. 3 - Manoj Rajput S/o Ranveer Singh Rajput, Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Ambedkar Nagar, Gandai, Police Station Gandai, District - K.C.G. Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sanju Jangade S/o Jaitaram Jangade Aged About 31 Years R/o Bhimouri, Police Station and Tahsil - Sahaspur Lohara, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 5 - Vinod Patile S/o Heeralal Patile Aged About 27 Years R/o Bhimouri, Police Station and Tahsil - Sahaspur Lohara, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ganesh Tandan S/o Devprasad Tandan Aged About 34 Years R/o Bhimouri, Police Station and Tahsil - Sahaspur Lohara, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Gandai, District - K.C.G. Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 03.04.2025 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 13/2025, registered at Police Station : Gandai, District – K.C.G. (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) and 42 of the C.G. Excise Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the police of Police Station : Gandai, District – K.C.G. (C.G.), received an information from the informant and on the basis of the said information conducted a raid and seized total 34.560 bulk liters of illicit liquor from the joint possession of the present applicants. Thereafter, Police has registered an offence punishable under Sections 34(2) and 42 of the C.G. Excise Act against the present applicants. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. He submits that the applicant No.1 has no any previous criminal antecedent and applicant No.2 has 08 previous criminal antecedents, out of which, 04 cases are under the Excise Act, in which, two cases are still pending, applicant No.3 has 02 previous criminal antecedents under the IPC, applicant No.4 has 03 previous criminal antecedents under the Excise Act which are 3 disposed of, applicant No.5 has 01 previous criminal antecedent under the Excise Act, which is pending and applicant No.06 has 02 previous criminal antecedents under the Excise Act, which are disposed of. He further submits that the applicants are in jail since 23.02.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court in the present case. She further submits that from the joint possession of the present applicants total 34.560 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized. She also submits that applicant No.2 has 08 previous criminal antecedents, out of which, 04 cases are under the Excise Act, applicant No.3 has 02 previous criminal antecedents under the IPC, applicant No.4 has 03 previous criminal antecedents under the Excise Act, applicant No.5 has 01 previous criminal antecedent under the Excise Act, which is pending and applicant No.06 has 02 previous criminal antecedents under the Excise Act, which shows that they are habitual offender, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of regular 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, particularly, that there is 08 criminal antecedents registered against the applicant No. 2, namely, Omkar Singh Baghel, out of which 04 cases are under the Excise Act, in which, 02 cases are pending and other 04 case are under the IPC and ishitgasha and he is a habitual 4 offender 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 No.2 on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant No.2 – Omkar Singh Baghel, involved in Crime No. 13/2025, registered at Police Station : Gandai, District – K.C.G. (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) and 42 of the C.G. Excise Act, is rejected. 7. Whereas, applicant No.1 has no any previous criminal antecedent, applicant No.3 has 02 previous criminal antecedents under the IPC, applicant No.4 has 03 previous criminal antecedents under the Excise Act which are disposed of, applicant No.5 has 01 previous criminal antecedent under the Excise Act, which is pending and applicant No.06 has 02 previous criminal antecedents under the Excise Act, which are disposed of and they are languishing in jail since 23.02.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant No.1, namely, Raghav Shrivas, applicant No.3, namely, Manoj Rajput, applicant No.4, namely, Sanju Jangade, applicant No.5, namely, Vinod Patile, applicant No.6, namely, Ganesh Tandan are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant No.1, namely, Raghav Shrivas, applicant No.3, namely, Manoj Rajput, applicant No.4, namely, Sanju Jangade, applicant No.5, namely, 5 Vinod Patile, applicant No.6, namely, Ganesh Tandan involved in Crime No. 13/2025, registered at Police Station : Gandai, District – K.C.G. (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) and 42 of the C.G. Excise Act, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, 6 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. 9. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan