1 2025:CGHC:5621 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 835 of 2025 Chandrakumar Dhruv S/o Dukalu Ram Aged About 27 Years R/o Pounsari, Police Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station City Kotwali Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Lata Nayak, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.01.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 16/2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali Balodabazar, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act against the present applicant. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that police of Police Station City ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.31 17:18:51 +0530 2 Kotwali Balodabazar, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.), has received a secret information from the informant and on the basis of said information, raid was conducted and seized 6.300 bulk liters of illicit liquor and cash amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, the aforesaid case was registered against the present applicants. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the said 6.300 bulk liters of illicit liquor was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant. It is further argued by her that the present applicant has 02 criminal antecedents out of which only 01 case is under the Excise Act which is stated to be pending. She also submits that under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years and the present applicant has been in jail since 06.01.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, she prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, opposes the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court and submits that the present applicant has 02 criminal antecedents out of which 01 case is under the similar nature, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the present applicant and the fact that the present applicant has 02 criminal antecedents out of which only 01 case is under the Excise Act which is stated to be pending. Moreover, the fact that the charge- sheet has been filed before the competent Court and he is in jail since 06.01.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the applicant – Chandrakumar Dhruv, involved in Crime No. 16/2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali Balodabazar, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act against the present applicant, 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against his under 4 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 his, 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 sufÏcient 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. 8. OfÏce 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 Abhishek