1 2025:CGHC:50723 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7189 of 2025 1 - Rohit Netam S/o Ramesh Netam Aged About 25 Years (As Per Charge Sheet), R/o Thana Chowk Ward No. 21 Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon C.G. (As Per Charge Sheet) 2 - Nandkishore Verma S/o Kumar Verma Aged About 28 Years (As Per Charge Sheet), R/o Village Mohara Ward No. 3, Tehsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.10.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 127/2025 registered at Police Station – Dongargarh, District- ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.10.13 11:19:19 +0530 2 Rajnandgaon (C.G.)., for the offence punishable under Section 34(2), 59(A), of the C.G. Excise Act and Section 111, 338, 336(3) of the BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.03.2025, the police received credible information that a huge quantity of illicit liquor had been stored in the farmhouse of one Rohit Netam @ Sonu, situated at Village Karwari, Latmarra Kachcha Road. Acting on the said information, the police party proceeded to the indicated spot, where they discovered a large quantity of illegal liquor allegedly transported from the State of Madhya Pradesh. It was further alleged that the liquor was being kept in the said farmhouse with the intent to refill it into bottles bearing seals and tags of the State of Chhattisgarh for the purpose of illegal sale within the State. Upon inspection, several empty bottles without labels or corks were also found at the site. On visual examination, the seal on the seized liquor indicated that the same had originated from another State and was being prepared for distribution in Chhattisgarh. Consequently, the police seized approximately 3,888 bulk litres of country-made liquor, along with other related articles, from the said farmhouse. Thereafter, a Dehati Nalisi was lodged against the said Rohit Netam @ Sonu, and upon completion of the preliminary inquiry, the case was formally registered. During the course of investigation, several other accused persons were also apprehended for their alleged involvement in the said act. After completion of investigation, the police have filed the charge 3 sheet before the competent court, alleging commission of the offences as mentioned in the FIR. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. It is contended that nothing has been seized from the exclusive possession of the applicants and that no incriminating material has been recovered from them during investigation. The only basis for their implication is the memorandum statement of a co-accused, which, by itself, does not constitute substantive evidence in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the applicants have not been found involved in the actual transportation, possession, or storage of the alleged contraband liquor, and their arrest is a result of mere suspicion and hearsay. Learned counsel contends that the co-accused persons, similarly situated, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court, and therefore, on the ground of parity, the present applicants are also entitled to be released on bail. The investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, their further detention will serve no fruitful purpose. It is submitted that the applicants are languishing in judicial custody since 03.04.2025 and 05.04.2025, and in view of the nature of allegations, the absence of recovery from their possession, and the fact that their role is only based on a memorandum statement, they deserve to be released on bail on the ground of parity. 4 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicants and submits that the case of the present applicants is distinguishable from that of the co-accused who have already been granted bail. It is contended that a large quantity of 3,888 bulk litres of illicit liquor was recovered from the farmhouse of Applicant No.1, Rohit Netam @ Sonu, which clearly establishes the involvement of the applicants in the commission of the alleged offence. Furthermore, it is submitted that Applicant No.1 and Applicant No.2 have nine previous criminal antecedents each, out of which, applicant No.1 has one case pending against him under the Excise act and applicant No.2 has three cases pending under the Excise Act. In contrast, the co-accused who were previously granted bail had no recovery from their personal possession and no prior criminal history, making their cases entirely distinguishable. In view of the gravity of the offence, the large-scale seizure, and the previous criminal record of the applicants, it is submitted that the applicants do not merit the concession of bail at this stage. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the fact that the allegations against the applicants, particularly applicant No.1, Rohit Netam @ Sonu, are of a grave nature, involving the seizure of a large quantity of 3,888 bulk litres of illicit liquor from his farmhouse, which prima facie indicates 5 active participation in the commission of the offence, further the cases of other co-accused who have been granted bail are distinguishable, as no recovery was made from their possession and they have no prior criminal history and further the fact that applicant No.1 and applicant No.2 have nine previous criminal antecedents each, and applicant No.2 has three pending cases under the Excise Act, which goes to show that applicants are habitual offenders and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, though the charge-sheet has been filed and applicants are languishing in jail since 03.04.2025 and 05.04.2025, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicants on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants – Rohit Netam and Nandkishore Verma filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, involved in Crime No. 127/2025 registered at Police Station – Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2), 59(A), of the C.G. Excise Act and Section 111, 338, 336(3) of the BNS, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned, is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 6 9. 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