1 2025:CGHC:25480 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4216 of 2025 Ramsingh Markam Gayadin Markam Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Litiyakhar P.S. Dipka, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Dipka, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.06.2025 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.65/2025, registered at Police Station Dipka District-Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and Section 111 of B.N.S. 2. Brief fact of the case is that the concerned police received secret information from an informant that, on the date of the incident, i.e., KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 01.03.2025, an unknown person was in possession of illegal liquor with the intent to sell it. Acting on this information, the police conducted a raid and seized 6.5 litres of kachchi mahua liquor from an open place at the scene of the incident. The person in possession failed to produce any valid documents for the seized liquor. Accordingly, the police registered a case against the applicant for offences punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.). 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the said liquor was not seized from the possession of the applicant. He also submits that under Section 34(2) of the Chattisgarh Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years. So far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, the applicant has three criminal antecedents of similar nature which is of the year 2023 to 2024 and are still pending which has been clearly explained in the bail application of para No.4(A) and he is in jail since 01.03.2025 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 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. 6.5 liters of 3 liquor. He further submits that the applicant has four criminal antecedents under the Excise Act which is of the year 2023 to 2024 and all are still pending 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. 6.5 liters of Kacchi Mahua liquor, so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, the applicant has four criminal antecedents under the Excise Act which is of the year 2023 to 2024 and all are still pending, hence 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 – Ramsingh Markam, involved in Crime No.65/2025, registered at Police Station Dipka District-Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable 4 under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and Section 111 of B.N.S., 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 Kunal