Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 35097 (CHH)

SATYANARAYAN @ PEETAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/5575/2025 · 2025-07-15

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:33480 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5575 of 2025 Satyanarayan @ Peetar S/o Rajesh Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Dhangardeepa, Raigarh, Tahsil And District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - City Kotwali, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16/07/2025 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. 278/2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.06.2025, as per secret information received from the informant, the Police of Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) seized AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 5.400 bulk liter of illicit liquor from the possession of the applicant, which led to the registration of the aforesaid offence and subsequently, he was arrested. Hence, the bail application. 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 further 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 three criminal antecedents, out of which, two are of the years 2024 & 2025 under the Excise Act and one is of the year 2024 under the BNS, which are pending, the applicant is in jail since 04.06.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. She further submits that the applicant is having three criminal antecedents, out of which, two are of the years 2024 & 2025 under the Excise Act and one is of the year 2024 under the BNS, further the quantity of liquor seized i.e. 5.400 bulk liters of illicit liquor, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6. Considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and in the present case the applicant is having three criminal antecedents, out of which, two are of the years 2024 & 2025 under the Excise Act and one is of the year 2024 under the BNS, which are pending, as such, he is a habitual offender further he has misused the bail granted to him earlier, and that the quantity of liquor seized is 5.400 bulk liters of illicit liquor 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. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Satyanarayan @ Peetar, involved in Crime No. 278/2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil