1 2025:CGHC:56443 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8874 of 2025 Vidyadhar Chouhan S/o Bharatlal Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Jogidipa, Police Station Saraipali, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Excise Circle Saraipali, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.11.2025 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. 151/2024, registered at Police Station – Saraipali District – Mahasamund (C.G.) for the 34(1)(a)(f),34(2) & 59 (a) of C.G. Excise Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the prosecution is that the team of Excise Circle Saraipali based on secret information seized total 70 VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.11.20 11:56:37 +0530 2 bulk liters of handmade Mahua Liquor and 1400 kgs. of Mahua Lahan from the house of the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent persons and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits The applicant respectfully submits that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, and even the alleged seizure of liquor is based on a false seizure memo. He was not present at the time of the alleged seizure and has been falsely implicated by the Excise Team due to a prior dispute, while the seizure witnesses, namely Premlal Ratre and Gadaram Ratre, are pocket witnesses of the said team. It is submitted that the maximum punishment under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act is only three years, and the police have failed to follow the arrest guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, and Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand. As per the prosecution, the incident took place on 31.12.2023, yet the applicant was arrested on 15.09.2025. The applicant is the sole bread-earner of his family, and his continued incarceration is causing severe financial hardship. Bail is also sought in light of the principles laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Banti Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh. The applicant is a permanent resident of his village with family and property there, and there is no likelihood of his absconding. He has been in jail since 15.09.2025, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and does not endorse the submissions made by the 3 learned counsel for the applicant. He submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that 70 bulk liters of handmade Mahua liquor and 1400 kilograms of Mahua Lahan were seized from the possession of the present applicant, therefore, he is not entitled to be granted bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant has no previous antecedents and also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and she has been in jail since 15.09.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Let applicant, Vidyadhar Chouhan, involved in Crime No. 151/2024, registered at Police Station – Saraipali District – Mahasamund (C.G.) for the 34(1)(a)(f),34(2) & 59(a) of 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 4 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