1 2025:CGHC:25948 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4672 of 2025 Raj Kumar Singh @ Guddu S/o Jogendar Singh Rajput Aged About 35 Years R/o Junvani Ward No.-2, Thana - Supela, District - Durg (C.G.), (As Per Charge Sheet Rajput Not Mention) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Hathband, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate along with Mr. T.R. Patel, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.06.2025 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. 193/2024, registered at Police Station- Hathband, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and 111 of Bharatiya Nyaya Snahita, 2023. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, as per the secret information received from the informant, on the basis of such information, the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 police officials conducted raid and have seized 4788 bulk liters of liquor from the possession of the co-accused person and on the basis of the memorandum of co-accused person present applicant has been implicated. Thereafter, the crime has been registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and no seizure has been made from the exclusive possession of the applicant, police has seized illicit liquor at open place. He further submits that there were 15 accused persons, out of which, 09 co- accused persons have been granted bail and some of the accused were absconding and applicant who was stated to be absconding. He further submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in jail since 28.03.2025 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 State Counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. She also submits that though the some of the co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court but two co-accused persons’ bail was rejected in MCRC No. 2531/2025 and MCRC No. 2266/2025 vide order dated 01.04.2025 and 21.03.2025 as they had criminal antecedents under the similar nature. So far as the applicant is concerned, the present applicant has 04 criminal antecedents under the similar nature, out of which, 02 cases are 3 pending, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender. 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 also considering the fact that though the some of the co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court but two co-accused persons’ bail was rejected in MCRC No. 2531/2025 and MCRC No. 2266/2025 vide order dated 01.04.2025 and 21.03.2025 as they had criminal antecedents under the similar nature. So far as the applicant is concerned, the present applicant has 04 criminal antecedents under the similar nature, out of which, 02 cases are still pending, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender 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 – Raj Kumar Singh @ Guddu, involved in Crime No. 193/2024, registered at Police Station- Hathband, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (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. 4 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 Rahul Dewangan