1 2026:CGHC:18115 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2168 of 2026 1 - Raju Mathur S/o Sadhelal Mathur Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Girdharikapa Ps Kunda Distt- Kabirdham ( C.G.) 2 - Bhim Gawaskar S/o Chepalal Gawaskar Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Girdharikapa Ps Kunda Distt- Kabirdham ( C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- City Kotwali, Mungeli District- Mungeli ( C.G. ). ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.04.2026 1. Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate, appears and submits that he has filed his vakalatnama before the Registry of this Court yesterday, which is taken on record. He is permitted to argue the matter. Vijay Shankar Mishra, who has filed the present bail application, is also present and has no objection. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the matter is heard finally. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. 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. 25/2026, registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, Mungeli District- Mungeli, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the C.G. Excise Act. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the police of Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli District- Mungeli, (C.G.), received an information from the informant and on the basis of the said information conducted a raid and seized total 51.840 bulk liters of country made liquor from the joint possession of the present applicants. Thereafter, Police has registered an offence punishable under Sections Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the C.G. Excise Act against the present applicants. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is based solely on the alleged seizure made from a house, which has been stated to belong to the applicants, however, no cogent or reliable material has been placed on record to establish ownership or possession of the said house by the applicants, rendering the prosecution case weak in nature. It is contended that in absence of any documentary proof connecting the applicants with the said premises, no presumption can be drawn against them and they are entitled to the benefit of bail. It is also submitted that the applicant 3 No.01 has three criminal antecedents, out of which two cases are registered under the Excise Act and all the cases are disposed of and applicant No.02 has no criminal antecedents. He further submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, the applicants are in jail since 16.01.2026, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Hence, he prays that the applicants be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. He also submits that from the joint possession of the present applicants total 51.840 bulk liters of country made liquor was seized. He also submits that the applicant No.01 has three criminal antecedents, out of which two cases are registered under the Excise Act, which shows that the applicants are habitual offender, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant No.01 has three criminal antecedents, out of which two cases are registered under the Excise Act and all the cases are disposed of, and applicant No.02 has no criminal antecedents, further considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and they are in jail since 16.01.2026 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, 4 therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicants. 8. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the applicants, Raju Mathur and Bhim Gawaskar, involved in Crime No. 25/2026, registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, Mungeli District- Mungeli, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) and 59(A) 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 misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on 5 the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial 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 applicants are 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. 9. 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 Rahul Dewangan