1 2025:CGHC:54232 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7811 of 2025 Dharamjeet Paikra S/o Late Sakhu Paikra, Aged About 52 Years Caste- Kanwar, R/o Village- Khajuri, P.S. And Tehsil Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.11.2025 1. This is the first 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. 210/2025 registered at Police Station - Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 09.09.2025, while the Station House Officer, Police Station Pratappur, was on patrol duty, he VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.11.07 11:49:22 +0530 2 received information from an informer that a person was illegally keeping Mahua liquor. Acting upon the said information, the police reached the spot, where, in the presence of witnesses, the applicant, a resident of Village Khajuri, was found carrying a white-Coloured plastic jerrycan of 20-liter capacity inside his bag. On being searched, 20 liters of hand-made Mahua liquor were recovered from his possession. The applicant failed to produce any valid document authorizing such possession. Consequently, the liquor was seized in accordance with law, and a case was registered against the applicant at Police Station Pratappur for illegal possession of Mahua liquor. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent persons and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He also submits that applicant has not committed any act constituting an offence under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, and the allegations levelled against him are baseless and unsupported by any cogent evidence. On the date of the alleged incident, a Nava Khai ceremony was being held at the applicant’s residence, attended by several relatives, during which the Excise Police arrived, created a dispute, and falsely registered the present case against him. The alleged offence under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and does not carry the punishment of death or life imprisonment. There is no material to suggest that the applicant is involved in habitual smuggling or commercial trade of liquor. Considering the nature of the evidence and the number of witnesses, the trial is likely to take considerable time, and the applicant’s continued detention would serve no useful purpose. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the 3 cause title, having both movable and immovable property therein, and he is ready to furnish adequate surety and to abide by all directions and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that the applicant has one criminal antecedents, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence levelled against the present applicant, and also taking into account that the applicant has one criminal antecedent, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 08.09.2025, and conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. 7. Let the Applicant – Dharamjeet Paikra, involved in Crime No. 210/2025 registered at Police Station - Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, be released on bail on his 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 4 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 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav