1 2025:CGHC:33834 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4583 of 2025 • Suman Lonia W/o. Lt. Hari Prasad (Wrongly Written As S/o. Lt. Hari Prasad In The Impugned Order) Aged About 27 Years R/o. Village - Ghutku, Police Station - Koni, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Excise Circle, Takhatpur, District -Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case information System) For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17/07/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.50/2025 registered at Police Station Excise Circle Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(1), d p 34(2) and 59d of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.07.19 11:32:51 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.05.2025 the Police of Police Station Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) received a secret information from the informant that the present applicant is keeping some illegal liquor and on the basis of said information the Police conducted raid and seized 150 liters of hand made Mahua liquor and 525 kgs of Mahua Lahan from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, the offence has been registered against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and 150 liters of hand made Mahua liquor and 525 kgs of Mahua Lahan was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant. He further submits that under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years. He also submits that the applicant has one criminal antecedents bearing crime No. 77 of 2025, which is pending before learned trial Court, the applicant is in jail since 24.05.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that applicant has one criminal antecedent bearing crime No. 77 of 2025, which is pending before learned trial Court, the applicant is in jail since 24.05.2025. 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 fact that the charge-sheet has been filed before the 3 competent Court and applicant has one previous criminal antecedent, bearing crime No. 77 of 2025, which is pending before learned trial Court, but after having gone thorough the materials available on records and the allegation levelled against the present applicant and the recovery made, further taking into account that the applicant is a habitual offender, further he has misused the bail granted to him earlier, and that the quantity of liquor seized is 150 liters of hand made Mahua liquor and 525 kgs of Mahua Lahan and also in light of the judgment rendered by the 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 is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Suman Lonia, involved in Crime No.50/2025 registered at Police Station Excise Circle Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(1), d p 34(2) and 59d of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, is rejected. 7. 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 vaishali