1 2025:CGHC:56604 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9418 of 2025 Arvind Sonwani S/o Ajeet Sonwani Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Dhandhan, P.S. Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, P.S. Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mrs. Shital Soni, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 20.11.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 0250/2025, registered at Police Station – Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(1) (A), (F), 59(A) & 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 08.07.2025 passed in MCRC VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.11.21 11:25:21 +0530 2 No. 5281 of 2025 on merits. 3. The prosecution, story in brief is that on May 22, 2025, the Officers of PS Takhatpur, District Bilaspur CG has seized 240.000 bulk Litres Bassia Latifolia (Mahua) made Liquor from the unlawful possession of the Applicant with a Gas-Stove and 7 Nos, of Aluminum Pots worth Rs. 58,000/-. On the same day, the Applicant was arrested for Offences punishable under Section 34(1)(A), (F), 59(A) & 34(2) of the CG Excise Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the earlier bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 08.07.2025 passed in MCRC No. 5281 of 2025 on merits. She submits the alleged liquor was not recovered from his exclusive possession; the offence is triable by a Magistrate and is not punishable with life imprisonment or death. It is further submitted that a seizure-witness examined before the learned trial Court on 04.09.2025 turned hostile, and although another prosecution witness was examined on 22.09.2025, thereafter no prosecution witnesses have appeared, as evident from the order sheets dated 17.06.2025 to 25.10.2025 (Annexure A/3). The applicant is the sole earning member of his family, and his continued pre-trial detention is causing severe hardship to his dependents. He has been in custody since 22.05.2025, conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, she prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the 3 bail application and submits that, in the present case, the charge- sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that seized 240.000 bulk Litres Bassia Latifolia (Mahua) made Liquor from the unlawful possession of the applicant with a Gas-Stove and 7 Nos, of Aluminum Pots worth Rs. 58,000/-. were recovered from the possession of the present applicant. In view of the gravity and seriousness of the offence, it cannot be said that this is a case of false implication. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the above submissions, merely because the seizure witnesses have turned hostile cannot be a ground for releasing the applicant on bail. Furthermore, a substantial quantity of 240.000 bulk liters of Bassia Latifolia (Mahua) liquor, along with a gas stove and seven aluminium pots worth Rs. 58,000/-, was recovered from the possession of the present applicant, which is far above the commercial quantity. In view of the gravity and seriousness of the offence, it cannot be said that this is a case of false implication. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant namely, Arvind Sonwani , involved in Crime No. 0250/2025, registered at Police Station – Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence 4 punishable under Sections 34(1)(A), (F), 59(A) & 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav