1 2025:CGHC:50345 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7979 of 2025 Gopal Uikey S/o Shri Ranjit Singh Uikey Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Nilja, P.S. Kharora, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Kharora, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.10.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 485/2025, registered at Police Station : Kharora, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act. 2. As per prosecution story in brief is that the police has received information through informant during patrolling that on the date of incident, three unknown person has kept illegal liquor in his VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.10.09 18:03:04 +0530 2 possession to sale, and police has seized 05.760 litres country made liquor from place of incident at open place near Ara Mill and applicant did not produce any document of seized liquor and hence police has registered a case for offence punishable under section 34 (2) of the Excise Act against the applicant and hence this bail application is being preferred before the Hon'ble Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated. He further submits that in the present case and has no nexus with the alleged incident narrated by the prosecution. The police have not seized any article from his possession, as the alleged illicit liquor was recovered from an open place; hence, the applicant has been wrongly implicated. The police did not conduct a proper investigation at the time of seizure, and the applicant, being an innocent person, has no knowledge about the seized illicit liquor. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 23.07.2025 and, being a poor person, his prolonged pre-trial detention is causing hardship to his family’s livelihood. Furthermore, even if the seized liquor is divided among the alleged three accused persons, the quantity attributed to each would be minimal. There is no prima facie case made out against the applicant, nor does he have any motive or intention to commit the alleged offence. The allegations made by the prosecution are false and baseless. The applicant reserves his right to raise additional grounds and submit relevant documents before this Hon’ble Court. He is a permanent resident of the village mentioned in the cause title and, therefore, Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 3 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 and that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. She also submits that from the possession of the present applicant 05.760 bulk liters of country made liquor was seized, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, further considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the present applicants moreover, the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and applicants are in jail since 23.07.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. 7. Let applicant, Gopal Uikey, involved in Crime No. 485/2025, registered at Police Station : Kharora, District – Raipur (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 local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through 4 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against his under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant 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 applicant is 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 him 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 Vaibhav