1 2025:CGHC:11190 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 686 of 2025 Kripesh Rajak S/o Jogan Rajak Aged About 24 Years R/o Kailash Nagar Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Rajnandgaon Spelling Not Correctly Mentioned In The Impugned Order) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho Police Station Arjunda District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.03.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with Crime No.9/2025, registered at Police Station Arjunda District Balod ( C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, it is alleged that secret information was received by the concerned police Station on MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.03.07 11:00:00 +0530 2 13.01.2025 that liquor has been hidden in the applicant's shop Krishna Dhaba then police served notice to applicant and during search, police recovered total 32 quarter of plane liquor 5.760 bulk litre worth Rs. 2880/- and cash Rs. 1930/- total Rs. 4810/- seized from the possession from applicant and arrested him. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 14.01.2025, though the charge-sheet has been filed, but the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. He later submits that applicant has no previous criminal antecedent registered against him. He lastly submits that under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years, therefore, he prays grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits applicant has three previous criminal antecedents registered against him, all under the Excise Act, out of which, two are still pending against him, which itself shows that applicant is a habitual offender, hence his bail application is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the fact that the applicant is having 03 previous criminal antecedents, all under the Excise Act, out of which, two are still pending against him which itself shows that applicant is a 3 habitual offender, 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 applicant is languishing in jail since 14.01.2025, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Therefore, the bail application filed by the applicant/accused – Kripesh Rajak involved in Crime No.9/2025, registered at Police Station Arjunda District Balod ( C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, is rejected at this stage. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned, is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. OfÏce 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 Manpreet