1 2025:CGHC:44712 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6784 of 2025 Chhabi Koshle, S/o Saindas Koshle, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Thakurikapa, Police Station Jarhagaon, Dist. Mungeli, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jarhagaon, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Indrapreet Kaur Chhabra, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.09.2025 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 73/2025 registered at Police Station- Jarhagaon, Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.07.2025 passed in MCRC No. 5283 of 2025 on the ground that applicant has 03 criminal antecedents under the Excise Act. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the police of Police Station : Jarhagaon, Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.), received an information from the informant and on the basis of the said information conducted a raid and seized 7.020 bulk liters of liquor from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, Police has registered an offence punishable under Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the C.G. Excise Act against the present applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application of the applicant. It is stated that the first bail application was rejected by this Hon’ble Court on the ground that the applicant had three criminal antecedents under the Excise Act. She further submits that out of the said three cases, the applicant has already been acquitted in two cases, and in the third case, which is still pending under the Excise Act, the seizure witnesses have also turned hostile. It is further submitted that even in the present case the seizure witnesses have turned hostile. She also submits that the applicant is in jail since 14.06.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, she prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant would oppose the bail application of the applicant and submits that quantity of liqour, totaling 7.020 bulk liters of liquor was seized from the possession of the present applicant without any valid licence and no plausible explanation has been given in this regard. She also submits that the present applicant has 03 previous criminal antecedents in the similar nature, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 3 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Having considered the submissions and material on record, it is evident that the applicant is involved in a case under the Excise Act and his acquittals in earlier cases were recorded only on account of seizure witnesses turning hostile. In the third case, which is still pending trial, the seizure witnesses have again turned hostile, and in the present case also, the same circumstance has occurred. This pattern clearly indicates that the applicant, while being in custody, has tampered with prosecution evidence to secure favourable outcomes. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to enlarge the applicant on bail, therefore, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant - Chhabi Koshle, involved in Crime No. 73/2025 registered at Police Station- Jarhagaon, Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan