1 2026:CGHC:19389 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1841 of 2026 Suraj Chouhan S/o Tilakram Chouhan , Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Subhash Ward Nevra, P.S. Tilda, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Excise Circle Tilda, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Khushbu Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.04.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 218/2026, registered at Police Station Excise Circle Tilda, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(1), 59(a) and 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the police received secret information from an informant that, on the date of the incident, an unknown person was in possession of illegal liquor for the purpose of sale. Acting on the said information, the police conducted a search and ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.04.28 11:04:10 +0530 2 allegedly seized 8.10 bulk litres of country-made liquor from the house of the applicant. The applicant failed to produce any valid documents in respect of the seized liquor. Consequently, the police registered a case against the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 34(1) and 59(a) and 34(2) of the Excise Act. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that although the applicant has 12 criminal antecedents, 9 cases are registered under the IPC and 3 cases are under the Gambling Act, however, the applicant has no criminal antecedents under the Excise Act. An explanation in this regard has already been provided in paragraph No. 4(a) of the present bail application. He further submits that under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, the minimum punishment prescribed is one year and the maximum punishment is three years, and the applicant has been in custody since 12.01.2026. It is also submitted that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. Therefore, he prays that the applicant be granted bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that, looking to the criminal antecedents of the applicant, the applicant appears to be a habitual offender. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that although the applicant has 12 criminal antecedents, 9 cases are registered under the IPC and 3 cases are under the Gambling Act, however, the applicant has no criminal antecedents under the Excise Act, as explained in paragraph No. 4(a) of the present bail application 3 and also considering that the charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant has been in custody since 12.01.2026, and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. 7. Let applicant, Suraj Chouhan, involved inCrime No. 218/2026, registered at Police Station Excise Circle Tilda, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(1), 59(a) and 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, be released on bail on furnishing 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 him under 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 him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 4 (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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek