1 2025:CGHC:36924 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5919 of 2025 • Sonu Pardhi S/o Ramnath Pardhi (Wrongly Mentioned As Ramlal Pardhi In The Impugned Order Aged About 29 Years Wrongly Mentioned As Senu Pardhi In The Inpugned Order) R/o Behind Hotel Jeevan Police Station Urla District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Urla, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29/07/2025 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 has been arrested in connection with Crime No.99/2025 registered at Police Station - Urla, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2 2. As per the prosecution case that on 22.05.2025 at about 15.45 p.m., during the patrolling the police official received information from the informant that the applicant is transporting liquor in the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 04 MR 5021, thereafter the police reached the place of incident i.e. in front of Pankaj Oxygen, Urla, Raipur, thereafter the applicant found in illegal possession of 30 quarter (5.400) bulk liter of country made liquor, hence the police has registered the Crime No. 99/2025 for the offence u/s 34(2) of the Excise Act, against the present applicant and arrested. 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 also 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 two criminal antecedents in crime Nos. 149/2024 and 177/2024, both are registered at police station – Urla, both are still pending and he is in jail since 22.05.2025 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 Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/non-applicant would oppose the bail application and 5.400 bulk liters liquor has been seized from the present applicant and the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that applicant has two criminal antecedents bearing crime Nos. 149/2024 and 177/ 2024, both are registered at police station – Urla and still pending. As such, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case 3 diary. 6. Considering the fact that the applicant has two criminal antecedents in crime Nos. 149/2024 and 177/2024, both are registered at police station – Urla, and still pending and the charge-sheet has been filed 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 – Sonu Pardhi involved in Crime No.99/2025 registered at Police Station - Urla, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh 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 forthwith. - Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali