1 2025:CGHC:22297 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3264 of 2025 Mahendra Beck S/o Antunit Beck Aged About 45 Years R/o Manik Prakashpur, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Excise Circle Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.05.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 08/2025 registered at Police Station Excise Circle Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 34(2), 59(a) and 34(1) of the Excise Act. 2. The story, in brief, is that on 14.04.2025 on the basis of the information received during patrolling, due to lack of time and apprehension of destruction of evidence, without obtaining a search warrant, the accompanying staff immediately went to a place some distance from the residential house of applicant, resident of village 2 Manikprakashpur, summoned witnesses and sent a fake buyer with a note of Rs. 100/- to buy liquor from applicant. After some time, the fake buyer bought one litre of Mahua liquor from the applicant. Later, taking the witnesses and the fake buyer along, they went to applicant’s house and questioned him about the illegal liquor, applicant’s accepted keeping and selling illegal liquor so seizure was made after investigation on the spot. The police recovered 30 litres of hand made Mahua Liquor, (18 litres in a 20 litre plastic can and 12 litres in a 15 litre plastic jeerycan), from his residential house against a valid licence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. The entire prosecution case is based on a staged recovery using a so- called fake buyer and there is no independent or credible evidence against the applicant. The search was conducted without a valid search warrant, in clear violation of the procedural safeguards. The seize from a private residential premises without prior judicial authorization raised serious questions about the illegality and admissibility of the evidence. Therefore, he submits that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case which has been placed on record. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, nature and gravity of offence and further the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, further, the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court and the present applicant has been in jail since 14.04.2025, the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Mahendra Beck, involved in Crime No. 08/2025 registered at Police Station Excise Circle Ambikapur, District - Surguja, (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 34(2), 59(a) and 34(1) of the Excise Act, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local 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 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail 4 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 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 applicants are deliberate or without sufficient 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. 8. Office 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 alfiza