1 2025:CGHC:4069 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 620 of 2025 1. Praful Masih Urf Golda S/o Premchand Masih Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Ganeshpur, P.S. Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 2. Jenika Masih Urf Khushbu W/o Praful Masih Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Ganeshpur, P.S. Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.01.2025 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. 12/2025, registered at Police Station Simga, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapra (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.23 17:47:52 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the police of Police Station Simga, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapra (C.G.), received an information from the informant and on the basis of the said information conducted a raid and seized 25 liters of country made liquor from the joint possession of the present applicants. Thereafter, Police has registered an aforesaid offence against the present applicants. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are falsely implicated in this case. She also submits that the present applicants have no criminal antecedents. She also submits that the applicant No. 02 is a mother of 06 months old child and both mother and father behind the bars. She 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 105.01.2025 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 the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and submits that the charge-sheet has not been filed before the competent Court. He also submits that from the joint possession of the present applicants 25 liters of country made liquor were seized, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 3 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 applicants have no previous antecedents, moreover, the present applicants are husband and wife and they have 06 months of child, although the charge-sheet has not yet been filed before the competent Court, they are in jail since 05.01.2025 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, Praful Masih Urf Golda and Jenika Masih Urf Khushbu, involved in Crime No. 12/2025, registered at Police Station Simga, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapra (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against 4 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 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 sufÏcient 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. OfÏce 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