1 2025:CGHC:53680 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7739 of 2025 Santosh Raj S/o Late Sajan Singh Aged About 39 Years R/o Shanti Nagar Pali, Pali, Police Station Pali, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pali, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Ubeja, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.11.2025 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. 336/2025 registered at Police Station - Pali District - Korba (C.G.) for the offence under Section 34(2) C.G. Excise Act, 1915. 2. As per the case of prosecution story, it has been alleged that on dated 30.08.2025 the Police of Police Station Pali was on a regular patrolling in the localities and further they receive a secret information and relying on the said information a raid has been conducted at the applicant's place whereby total 19 liters of hand-made kacchi mahua and rupees 100 has been seized from the applicant. That, on the said VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.11.04 13:09:31 +0530 2 seizure a FIR was registered against the applicant under Section 34(2) of the CG Excise Act, and the applicant was arrested on dated 30.08.2025. 3. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, the applicant has not committed any offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 30.08.2025, and his further detention serves no fruitful purpose. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception applies in the present case, as the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. The applicant is a young man with no criminal antecedents, and continued incarceration with hardened criminals may adversely affect his behaviour and future prospects. The alleged seizure and arrest suffer from material procedural irregularities, as the mandatory safeguards prescribed under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, such as preparation of a seizure memo, attestation by independent witnesses, and prompt forwarding of samples for chemical analysis, were not duly followed. The prosecution alleges recovery of 19 litres of hand-made Mahua liquor from the applicant; however, the applicant categorically denies any connection with the seized material, and the prosecution has failed to establish any credible evidence linking him to the alleged possession, storage, or transportation of the contraband. Even if the prosecution story is taken at its face value, no offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act is made out. The applicant is entitled to the presumption of innocence under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, and prolonged pre-trial detention would amount to punishment 3 before conviction. Reliance is placed upon the judgments of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; Hussainara Khatoon (III) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 93; and State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that prolonged custody of under-trial prisoners amounts to violation of Article 21 and that bail should ordinarily be granted when the trial is likely to be delayed. The applicant is 39 years of age, suffering from epilepsy and other medical ailments, and his continued incarceration will further deteriorate his health, therefore he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant opposes the bail application and submits that the charge- sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court and also submits that the applicant has one criminal antecedent. He further submits that a contraband article, i.e.,19 liters of hand made kacchi mahua and rupees 100, was seized from the possession of the applicant, therefore, the present applicant is not entitled to the grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the present applicant, and the fact that he is in jail since 30.08.2025 and the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled 4 to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant - Santosh Raj, involved in Crime No. 336/2025 registered at Police Station - Pali District - Korba (C.G.) for the offence under Section 34(2) C.G. Excise Act, 1915, 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 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. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav