1 2025:CGHC:8375 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1382 of 2025 1 - Sanjay Kumar S/o Budhlal Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Injani Police Station Jhimili District- Surajpur ( C.G. ). 2 - Anshu Soni S/o Shiv Kumar Soni Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Ajirma, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja ( C.G. ). 3 - Raja Prakash Pandwar S/o Ramdas Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Dawansara, Police Station Jhilmili, District- Surajpur ( C.G. ). ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Assistant District- Excise OfÏcer, Division Flying Scot Division Sarguja, District- Sarguja, ( C.G. ) ( As Per Charge Sheet ). ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.02.2025 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. 149/2025, registered at Police Station : Assistant District Excise OfÏcer, Division Flying Scot Division Sarguja, District- Sarguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2), KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 34(1)(A), 36, 59(A), 38(A), 39(B)(C) of the C.G. Excise Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.01.2025, as per secrete information received by the Excise OfÏcer, on the basis of such information, a raid being conducted in the Foreign Liquor Shop situated at Pratappur, in which it was found that the applicants along with co-accused person are mixing the foreign liquor by using the water and the sticker and hologram of empty bottle was seized and it was found that total 52.75 liters of different-different brands which was mixed with the water was seized and subsequently the accused persons have been arrested for the commission of alleged offences. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the false seizure memo has been prepared by the police in order to rope the applicants in a false criminal case and the applicants are hopeful regarding the facts that they would be acquitted from the allegation of this case. He further submits that the applicants are working in a liquor shop and there is no active role participated by the applicants for the commission of alleged offences and when the inspection was made by the ofÏcers, the applicants are present on the shop with co-accused and since the applicants were present on the shop, they have been arrested for the commission of alleged offences. It is further argued by him that under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years. He further 3 submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has filed before the competent Court and the applicants are in jail since 03.01.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicants and submit that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant No.3 namely Raja Prakash Pandwar has only one criminal antecedent under the IPC and rest two applicants have no previous criminal antecedent. She further submits that from the joint possession of the present applicants 52.75 liters of different- different brands of liquor which was mixed with the water was seized. Accordingly, they are not entitled for grant of 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 in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, so far as the criminal antecedent of the applicants are concerned, the applicant No. 3 namely Raja Prakash Pandwar has only one criminal antecedent under the IPC and rest others have no previous criminal antecedent and also considering the fact that the quantity of liquor seized from the joint possession of the applicants i.e. 52.75 liters of different-different brands of liquor which was mixed with the water was seized and they are in jail since 03.01.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some 4 time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicants. 7. Let applicants, Sanjay Kumar, Anshu Soni and Raja Prakash Pandwar, involved in Crime No. 149/2025, registered at Police Station : Assistant District Excise OfÏcer, Division Flying Scot Division Sarguja, District- Sarguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2), 34(1)(A), 36, 59(A), 38(A), 39(B)(C) 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 misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial 5 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 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 them 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 Kunal