1 2025:CGHC:55321 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9093 of 2025 1. Vinod Pardhi S/o Lalla Ram Pardhi Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Boirdih, O.P. Chikhali, Police Station - Kotwali, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2. Mangalu Pardhi S/o Bhuneshwar Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Boirdih, O.P. Chikhali, Police Station - Kotwali, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Somni, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Khilendra Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.11.2025 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 114/2025, registered at Police Station Somni, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 29/05/2025, the police of P.S. Somni received information that the co-accused in the present case, namely ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.14 11:08:04 +0530 2 Pinku Pardhi, was involved in transporting illicit liquor and had hired the present applicants for the purpose of supplying the said liquor to buyers/customers. Acting on the said information, the police raided the place of incident, where the present applicants were found in possession of 40.500 litres of liquor. Accordingly, an offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 2015, was registered against the present applicants. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that applicant No. 1 has two criminal antecedents - one under the Excise Act, in which he has already been acquitted, a copy of the judgment having been annexed with the present bail application, and the other under the Gambling Act. Applicant No. 2, however, has no criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, the minimum punishment prescribed is one year and the maximum punishment is three years. The applicants have been in jail since 29.05.2025, and as the trial is likely to take some time to conclude, the learned counsel prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court. She further submits that from the joint possession of the present applicants 40.500 liters of liquor were seized, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of regular 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 0applicant No. 1 has two criminal antecedents - one under the Excise 3 Act, in which he has already been acquitted, a copy of the judgment having been annexed with the present bail application, and the other under the Gambling Act. Applicant No. 2, however, has no criminal antecedents, also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, the applicants are in jail since 29.05.2025, conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicants. 7. Let applicants, Vinod Pardhi and Mangalu Pardhi, involved in Crime No. 114/2025, registered at Police Station Somni, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act of the C.G. Excise Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such 4 proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants are deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 8. 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 Abhishek