1 2025:CGHC:6533 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1030 of 2025 Ramkumar Anjan S/o Mannuram Aged About 50 Years R/o Diprapara, Karhibazar, Police Station City Kotwali Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station City Kotwali Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.02.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 19/2025, registered at Police Station- City Kotwali Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, as per the secret information received from the informant, on the basis of such information, the police ofÏcials conducted raid and have seized 5.760 bulk liters illicit RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.02.06 16:56:11 +0530 2 liquor from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, the crime has been registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and no seizure has been made from the exclusive possession of the applicant. She further submits that the applicant is having 04 criminal antecedents, out of which, 03 cases are under the Excise Act and remaining 01 case is IPC, in which he has already been acquitted in 01 case, rest of the cases are still pending. She also submits that under Sections 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years and the applicant is languishing in jail since 06.01.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, she prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. He also submits that the present applicant has 04 criminal antecedents, out of which, 03 cases are under the Excise Act and remaining 01 case is IPC, in which he has already been acquitted in 01 case, rest of the cases are still pending, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender. As such, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case also considering the fact that the applicant has 04 criminal antecedents, out of which, 03 cases are under the Excise Act and remaining 01 case is IPC, in which he has already been acquitted in 01 case, rest of the cases are still pending, shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender and also 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, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail, accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Ramkumar Anjan, involved in Crime No. 19/2025, registered at Police Station- City Kotwali Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, is rejected. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 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 Rahul Dewangan