2025:CGHC:28762 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3868 of 2025 Yashwant Kumar Kamar S/o Kumar Sing Kamar Aged About 22 Years At Village Mandbaay, Bamhandehi, Ps Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Ps Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 100/2025, registered at Police Station Fingeshwar, District – Gariyaband (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.06.30 18:27:00 +0530 2. As per the prosecution story, police personnel of PS Fingeshwar received a classified information on date 16/04/2025 thereafter, a raid was conducted and a total of 105 bulk litre of liquor was allegedly seized from the Applicant, thereafter crime No. 100/2025 was registered by the concerned PS against the Applicant under section 34(2) of the CG Excise Act and the Applicant was arrested. From a bare perusal of the FIR, it is apparent that there is nothing to substantiate that the alleged liquor was within conscious possession of the Applicant moreover, the offences alleged against the Applicant are triable by JMFC and that investigation and trial is likely to take time and there is no requirement of custodial interrogation therefore, the offence punishable under section 34(2) of the C.G.Excise Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and no seizure has been made from the exclusive possession of the applicant. He further submits that the applicant is a law abiding citizen which is apparent from his clean record and absence of antecedents while considering the bail petition He further submits that the applicant is the only bread earner of his family and bears the responsibility of his family therefore, if he remains in jail for long time his entire family shall suffer hardships for livelihood and the applicant has been in jail since 16.04.2025 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 State Counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that total 105 bulk liters of liquor has been seized from the possession of the applicant in the present case charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. As such, 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 facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the quantity of the seized liquor i.e. 105 bulk liter further the charge-sheet has been filed, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble 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. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Yashwant Kumar Kamar involved in Crime No. 100/2025, registered at Police Station Fingeshwar, District – Gariyaband (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, is rejected. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 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 vaibhav