1 2025:CGHC:39142 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6185 of 2025 1. Shekhar Prashad Yadav S/o Digambar Yadav Aged About 27 Years Resident of Gram Kiraree, Police Station Baradwar Sakti Chhattisgarh 2. Ghanshyam Kumar Gabel S/o Puran Das Aged About 25 Years Resident of Gram Darrabhata, Police Station Malkharouda, Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Baradwar, Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Rahul Goswami, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.08.2025 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 166/2025, registered at Police Station Baradwar, District – Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2), 42 of the C.G. Excise Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.06.2025, Police Station Baradwar, District Sakti (C.G.), registered a case against the accused persons under Crime No. 166/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 34(2) and 42 of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. During the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.07 19:42:06 +0530 2 investigation, 70 pieces of Desi Plain Unique liquor of 180 ml each, totaling 12.6 liters and valued at Rs. 5,600/-, were recovered from the possession of accused Shekhar Yadav. Additionally, 50 pieces of Desi Plain Unique liquor of 180 ml each, totaling 9 liters and valued at Rs. 4,000/-, were seized from the possession of accused Ghanshyam while the liquor was being transported in a Honda Activa bearing registration number CG 13 X 4957. The total seized quantity of liquor is 21.6 liters. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that applicant No. 1 has one criminal antecedent under the IPC, and applicant No. 2 has no criminal antecedents. He further submits that under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years, and the applicants are in jail since 23.06.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, she prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicants. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and also endorse the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant No. 1 has one criminal antecedent under the IPC, and applicant No. 2 has no criminal antecedents and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel 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 the applicant No. 1 has one criminal antecedent under the IPC, and applicant No. 2 has no criminal antecedents, moreover, the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in 3 the present case, applicants are in jail since 23.06.2025 conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicants. 7. Let applicants, Shekhar Prashad Yadav and Ghanshyam Kumar Gabel, involved in Crime No. 166/2025, registered at Police Station Baradwar, District – Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2), 42 of the C.G. Excise Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (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 misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail 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 4 the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek