1 2025:CGHC:34262 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5658 of 2025 1 - Rajkumar Sahu S/o Nandkumar Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o Sanjay Colony, P.S. Suhela, Dist- Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. 2 - Akshay Kumar Nishad S/o Janku Ram Nishad Aged About 20 Years R/o Kokdi, P.S. City Kotwali Balodabazar, Dist- Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Suhela, Dist- Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. ... Respondent For Applicants : Shri Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, PL. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18/07/2025 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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.70/2025 registered at Police Station GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.07.21 17:26:08 +0530 2 Suhela, Dist- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of C.G. Excise Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23/03/2025, on the basis of information received from the informant the P.S. Suhela staff reached to water tank Amakoni road and confiscated 38.340 bulk litre of country made liquor (mahua). The police issued notice u/s 94 of B.N.S.S. to the accused and the accused failed to submit any documents with respect to confiscated liquor. On the basis of which the Applicants were arrested by the police of Police Station Suhela, Dist- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), for the alleged offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and 38.340 bulk litre of country made liquor (mahua) was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicants. 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 submits that the applicants are in jail since 23/03/2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 4. Learned counsel 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. She would further submit that applicant No.1 has five criminal antecedents out of 3 which there is no case under the Excise Act and applicant No.2 has four criminal antecedents out of which there is one case under the Excise Act which is pending. She further submits that 38.340 bulk litre of country made liquor (mahua) was recovered from the possession of the applicants, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicants and the fact that against applicant No.1 there is no case under the Excise Act and against applicant No.2 there is one case under the Excise Act which is pending, they are in jail since 23/03/2025 and the charge-sheet has been filed, further the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the applicants -Rajkumar Sahu and Akshay Kumar Nishad involved in Crime No.70/2025 registered at Police Station Suhela, Dist- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of C.G. Excise Act, be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 4 (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 5 recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri