1 2025:CGHC:17225 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1367 of 2025 Manoj Chandravanshi S/o Chhotu Ram Chandravanshi Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Lakhanpurkala Police Station And Tehsil Pipariya District - Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer Police Station Pipariya District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. 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. 26/2025 registered at Police Station Pipariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act against the present applicant. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.04.21 14:41:28 +0530 2 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.01.2025, based on secret information, the police of Police Station Pipariya conducted a raid at Village Lakhanpur, near a government land on the bank of a pond. During the raid, they seized 187 quarters of country plain liquor, each containing 180 ml, totaling 33.660 bulk liters. The present applicant was arrested, and his arrest was informed to his family members. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered against him, and an investigation was initiated. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the said liqour were were not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant. It is further argued by him that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents under the Excise Act. He 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 28.01.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. 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. He also submits that the applicant has 02 criminal antecedents, 01 is under the NDPS Act and another is under the IPC, shows that the applicant is a habitual offender, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 7. 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 no criminal antecedent under the Excise Act, moreover, the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and he is in jail since 28.01.2025 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. 8. Let the applicant – Manoj Chandravanshi, involved in Crime No. 26/2025 registered at Police Station Pipariya, District Kabirdham (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 Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 4 (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. 9. 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