2025:CGHC:43674 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5765 of 2025 Pardeshi Banajre S/o Dehra Banjare Aged About 58 Years R/o Village- Kari, P.S. Lawan, Dist.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Lawan, Dist.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. (Name Of District And Name Of Police Station Not Mentioned Properly The Order Sheet) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.08.2025 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. 262/2025, registered at Police Station Lawan, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 02/06/2025, on the basis of information received from the informant, the staff of P.S. Lawan reached village kari where they confiscated of total 90 bulk litre of VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.08.29 12:00:48 +0530 country made liquor (mahua) of Rs. 18000. The accused served a notice u/s 94 of the B.N.S.S. by the police, to which he has failed to submit any document. On the basis of which the applicant was arrested by the police of Police Station Lawan, District - Bslodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.), for the alleged offence punishable under Section(s) 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act. 3. The applicant submits that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, and the learned Court below has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the essential ingredients of the charge under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act; the rejection of bail by the Court below is based on conjectures and stretched imagination, which is impermissible in law. The applicant has been intentionally implicated without any substantive evidence, and it is not in the interest of the prosecution to contend that his release on bail would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. The applicant undertakes to abide by any conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court and the applicant has been in jail since 02.06.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 4. 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. He submits that the present applicant has 02 criminal antecedents under the Excise Act, 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 the applicant has 2 criminal antecedents under the Excise Act, 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. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Pardeshi Banajre, involved in Crime No. 262/2025, registered at Police Station Lawan, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav