Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 55981 (CHH)

NAROTTAM GOND v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/8738/2025 · 2025-11-03

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:53920 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8738 of 2025 Narottam Gond S/o Late Chhedilal Gond Aged About 46 Years R/o Village - Padariya, Police Station - Akaltara, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The District Magistrate, District - Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.11.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 399/2025, registered at Police Station - Akaltara District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on dated 24/08/2025, police officer's of Police Station-Akaltara, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) have seized 7.340 bulk liter countries made (Plane & Mahua) liquor VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.11.07 12:04:50 +0530 2 from possession of the applicant, as per information given by the informer, thereafter he subsequently been arrested by concern prosecution authorities. 3. The applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that No liquor was ever seized from his possession, and it is submitted that the concerned police officers attempted to pressurize the applicant to put his signature or thumb impression as a witness, and upon his refusal, he was falsely implicated in the alleged offence. The alleged liquor was recovered from an open place and not from the exclusive possession of the applicant, yet he has been falsely accused only to shield the real offender. The applicant is in jail since 24.08.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, he prays for grant of applicant on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant has opposed the bail application and submitted that, in the present case, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. He further submitted that the present applicant has four criminal antecedents, including cases registered under the Excise Act, out of which one case is still pending, which clearly shows that the applicant is a habitual offender. Therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also taking into account that the applicant has been involved in four criminal 3 cases, out of which three were under the Excise Act, though he was acquitted in those cases, upon a specific query made to the counsel for the applicant regarding the ground of acquittal whether it was a clean acquittal or based on the seizure witnesses turning hostile it was stated that the acquittal was granted as the seizure witnesses had turned hostile. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to grant bail, as the applicant appears to be a habitual offender and has been repeatedly involved in cases under the Excise Act. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Narottam Gond, involved in Crime No. 399/2025, registered at Police Station - Akaltara District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, is rejected. 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of Six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. 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