1 2025:CGHC:61534 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9436 of 2025 Sukhram Janghel @ Sakhu @ Chhote Lal Son Of Shatruhan Janghel Aged About 24 Years R/o Khaira, Navapara, Police Station Chuikhadan, District - Khairagarh - Chuikhnadan - Gandai (C.G.) (As Per Final Report) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Chuikadan, District - Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Gulabani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17/12/2025 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 267/2024 registered at Police Station Chuikadan, District - AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(1)(B), 35, 59(A) of C.G Excise Act and Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 3(5), 111(2) of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.09.2024, on receiving information that co-accused Jeevan Tandan was selling illegal liquor near a banyan tree at village Vicharpur, the police raided the spot and seized 3.060 bulk litres of country-made liquor without label or hologram, leading to registration of an offence under Section 34(1)(b) of the Excise Act. On testing by the Excise Department on 07.09.2024, the seized liquor was found to be counterfeit. During interrogation, co-accused Jeevan Tandan disclosed that he had purchased the liquor from co-accused Vinod Soni and that the present applicant was working as a supplier. Further enquiry revealed that Vinod Soni and other accused were already in custody in Crime No. 204/2024, P.S. Gandai, and articles used for manufacturing duplicate liquor had been seized. Consequently, the applicant and other co-accused were arrayed in the present case and charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 34(1)(B), 35, 59(A) of the C.G. Excise Act, 2015 and Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 3(5), 111(2) of the BNS, 2023, alleging their involvement in manufacture and supply of duplicate liquor. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order 3 dated 20.05.2025 in MCRC No.3894 of 2025, therefore this second bail application is filed on the ground that while rejected the first bail application of the applicant, this Court in para No.6 observed that the applicant has three criminal antecedents under the Excise Act, whereas in fact the applicant has only one criminal under the Excise Act, which is pending, further charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case and the applicant is in jail since 24.10.2024, hence, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application, but admits the fact that the applicant has only one criminal antecedent under the Excise Act. He further submits that the applicant is alleged to have been involved, along with co- accused persons, in the manufacture and supply of counterfeit country-made liquor, acting as a supplier in the illegal liquor trade, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that this is the second bail application of the applicant and first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.05.2025 in MCRC No. 3894 of 2025 on the ground that the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents under the Excise Act, which are pending against him, but considering the fact that at the time of 4 deciding the first bail application of the applicant, the learned State counsel made an erroneous submission to the effect that the applicant had two criminal antecedents under the Excise Act, in fact, the applicant has only one criminal antecedent under the Excise Act, which is presently pending, the said factual position has been duly admitted by the learned State counsel, further charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Sukhram Janghel @ Sakhu @ Chhote Lal, involved in Crime No. 267/2024 registered at Police Station Chuikadan, District - Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(1)(B), 35, 59(A) of C.G Excise Act and Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 3(5), 111(2) of BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 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 5 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 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. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil