1 2025:CGHC:6540 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1062 of 2025 Kesharu @ Keshari Sahu S/o Late Ramcharan Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Gujra, Ps- Bhakhara, Tehsil And District- Dhamtarai, C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Ps- Bhakhara, Tehsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.02.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.148/2024, registered at Police Station Bhakhara District- Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, on 24.08.2024, the Police of KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Police Station Bhakhara District- Dhamtari have received a secret information from the informant, on the basis of said information the Police conducted raid and have seized 6.840 bulk liters of country made liquor from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, the crime has been registered for an offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The mandatory provisions with regard to search and seizure have not been followed by the Police in this case. He also submits that the under Section 34(2) of the Chattisgarh Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years. He also submits that the applicant has 51 criminal antecedents out of which 11 cases are under the Excise Act, 01 case is under the NDPS Act, 05 cases are under the IPC and rest 34 cases are under the preventive in nature and he is in jail since 25.08.2024 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the quantity of liquor seized from the possession of the applicant i.e. 6.840 bulk liters of country made liquor. She further submits that the applicant has 51 criminal antecedents out of which 11 cases are under the Excise Act, 01 case is under the NDPS Act, 05 cases 3 are under the IPC and rest 34 cases are under the preventive in nature and as such he is a habitual offender. Hence, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that in the present case charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the quantity of liquor seized from the possession of the applicant i.e. 6.840 bulk liters of country made liquor, so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, the applicant has 51 criminal antecedents out of which 11 cases are under the Excise Act, 01 case is under the NDPS Act, 05 cases are under the IPC and rest 34 cases are under the preventive in nature and as such, it appears that the present applicant is a habitual offender, further he has misused the bail granted to him earlier, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Court in Deepak Yadav Vs. 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. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Kesharu @ Keshari Sahu involved in 4 Crime No.148/2024, registered at Police Station Bhakhara District-Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, is rejected. 7. Office 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 0. Kunal