1 2026:CGHC:63 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10449 of 2025 1 - Pankaj Mishra S/o Khemnath Mishra Aged About 28 Years Caste- Brahman, R/o Village- Rasmohini Ward No. 10 Sagar Tola Tahsil- Jetpur District- Shahdol (M.P.) 2 - Deepak Morya S/o Late Shyam Narayan Morya Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- New Raj Nagar, Ward No. 10 P.S.- Ram Nagar District- Anuppur (M.P.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Jhagrakhand, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicants : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02/01/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 186/2025 registered at Police Station- Jhagrakhand, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 under Section 34(1) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and 111(3), 281 of BNS. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the Assistant Sub- Inspector Ram Roop Singh Shyam lodged an FIR stating that on 18.11.2025, he received information from an informant that a black Bolero vehicle was lying in an accidental condition on the side of Jhunjhatiya Jungle Road near Chataniya Jhimar Nala culvert. Upon verification of the said information, a case was registered on the spot under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 34(1) of the Excise Act relating to an unnumbered vehicle. During inspection of the vehicle, liquor was found inside the damaged vehicle as well as near the spot, consisting of 10 pav (each containing 180 ml) of English liquor of Goa Company, along with broken bottles and caps of English liquor of Goa Company, totaling 198 pieces. Further, one black-coloured Bolero vehicle bearing registration number MP-18-ZC-7866, found in a damaged condition, was seized from the spot. The incident was found to be related to illegal liquor smuggling and, accordingly, an unnumbered crime was registered and taken up for investigation. During the course of investigation, after tracing the address of the registered owner of the vehicle and summoning her for inquiry, the husband of the vehicle owner, namely Kamta Prasad Sharma, gave a memorandum statement. On the basis of the said memorandum statement, the accused were arrested in the present case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants have 3 been falsely implicated in the present case. Nothing whatsoever has been seized from the possession of the applicants and their implication is solely based on the memorandum statement of the co- accused, which is inadmissible in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the applicants have absolutely no role in the alleged crime; they were neither present at the spot nor in any manner connected with the alleged incident. For this very reason, the applicants were not named in the FIR and no allegation was initially levelled against them. Even as per the prosecution case, the applicants have been arrayed as an accused only on the basis of the memorandum of a co-accused and no independent or incriminating evidence has been brought on record to connect them with the offence. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jignesh @ Banshilal Navinchandra Desai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 591, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. It is also submitted that the alleged liquor has not been recovered from the exclusive possession of the applicants. The main accused persons, whose names are specifically mentioned in the FIR, have already been released on bail (Muchalka) by the police station, as evident from the police report dated 06.12.2025 (Annexure A/4). It is further submits that the minimum punishment is one year and the maximum punishment is three years, and the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time. It is lastly submitted that though the police have referred to another criminal case against applicant No.2 being Crime No. 265/2022 of Police Station Charcha, District Koriya 4 (C.G.), the name of applicant No.2 does not find mention either in the FIR or in the charge-sheet of that case, nor is he involved in the trial proceedings, as reflected from the FIR and Court status report and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicants are in jail since 02.12.2025 therefore, she prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, the applicant No.1 has no criminal antecedents but applicant No.2 has two criminal antecedents out of which in one case he has already been acquitted however, no explanation has been offered with respect to another case. Accordingly, the present applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the applicants were not named in the FIR, no recovery has been effected from their possession, their implication is based solely on the memorandum statement of a co-accused, the main accused persons have already been released on bail and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed and the applicants are in custody since 02.12.2025, thus, without further commenting 5 on the merits of the case, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the applicants on bail. 7. Let the applicants – Pankaj Mishra and Deepak Morya, involved in Crime No. 186/2025 registered at Police Station- Jhagrakhand, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(1) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and 111(3), 281 of BNS, be released on bail on their furnishing a 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 fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in 6 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 deliberated 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 for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal