1 2026:CGHC:7258 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 215 of 2026 1 - Jamdhar Baghel S/o Sukhdas Baghel Aged About 21 Years R/o Village - Karekot Binta, Police Station - Lohandiguda, District- Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Dusenram Kashyap S/o Anantram Kashyap Aged About 26 Years R/o Village - Kalenar Para Kundaru, Post Office - Matnar, Police Station- Pungarpaal, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Excise Circle Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Aman Tamboli, P.L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order On Board 10/02/2026 1. The applicants have filed this bail application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with crime no. 17/2025, registered at Police Station Excise Circle Jagdalpur, for the offence punishable under Sections 34(1) 34 (2), 36 & 59(A) of the CG Excise Act. SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.02.11 15:50:00 +0530 2 2. In this case there are total 3 accused persons in which one juvenile co-accused has already been acquitted. As per prosecution story, on 02.06.2025, on the basis of information received from an informant police officials searched and seized total 225 bulk liters of liquor from a vehicle CG 27 R 5866 along with a juvenile, on being asked he stated the names of the applicant who were fled away from the spot. Based on above offence has registered against the applicants. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that only on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused (Juvenile), the applicants have been implicated. Hence, it is prayed that the applicants may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State opposes the bail application and submits that the applicants are the main accused, therefore, it is prayed that they may not be granted benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence collected by the prosecution, arguments advanced by both the counsel appearing for the parties, at this stage, without further commenting on merits of the case, in my considered opinion, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Shubham