1 2025:CGHC:19072 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3246 of 2025 Yadaiya Kumbham S/o Dashrath Kumbham Aged About 54 Years R/o Village - Shaligauram, P.S. Shaligauram, District- Nalgonda (Telngana) Present Address – Village - Deobhog, Ps Deobhog, District - Gariyaband, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Deobhog, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Santoshi Yadav, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.04.2025 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. 99/2025 registered at Police Station Deobhog, District Gariyaband (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act. 2. As per the prosecution's story, in brief, it is that on 10.04.2025, the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.04.29 11:29:31 +0530 2 police ofÏcer of Devbhog Police Station received information from an informer that a person had stored a large quantity of Double Red Horse brand raw mahua liquor from Odisha for sale. Subsequently, 40 pieces of Double Red Horse brand raw mahua liquor from Odisha, each containing 200 ml (totaling 8 bulk liters), were seized. The police have registered a case for the offense punishable under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, and hence, this bail application is being preferred before the Hon'ble Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the said liquor were not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant. She further submits that the present applicant has only 01 criminal antecedent under the Excise Act in which he has already been granted regular bail. SHe also submits that under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years and the applicant has been in jail since 11.04.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, she prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. She further submits that the present applicant has 01 criminal antecedent under the Excise Act of the year 2025, which shows that the applicant is a habitual offender. As such, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused 3 the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the further the fact that the present applicant has only 01 criminal antecedent under the Excise Act in which he has already been granted bail, moreover, the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and he has been in jail since 11.04.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the applicant – Yadaiya Kumbham, involved in Crime No. 99/2025 registered at Police Station Deobhog, District Gariyaband (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, be released on bail on her furnishing a 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 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 Abhishek