1 2026:CGHC:19383 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2222 of 2026 Chitrasen Miri S/o Amar Singh Aged About 42 Years Resident Of Dewanpali, Police Station And Tahsil Baramkela, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House OfÏcer, Police Of Police Station Baramkela, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Ms. Lata Nayak, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, 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. 15/2026, registered at Police Station : Baramkela, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 14.02.2026, the police, acting on specific and credible secret information received KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 from an informer, conducted a raid in accordance with law, wherein the present applicant was apprehended and allegedly found in conscious possession of 60 bulk litres of country-made liquor, which was being kept for unlawful purposes. The said contraband was seized on the spot and necessary proceedings were carried out. In pursuance thereof, an FIR came to be registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the said liquor was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant. She further submits that under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years and in the present case, charge-sheet has filed before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 14.02.2026 and the applicant had one criminal antecedent under similar offence, in which he had already been acquitted and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, she prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant had one previous criminal antecedent under similar offence, in which he had already been acquitted as the same has been explained in para 4(a) of the bail application and further the quantity of liquor seized from the possession of the present applicant i.e. 60 bulk liters of country made liquor as such, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. 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 had one previous criminal antecedent under similar offence, in which he had already been acquitted as the same has been explained in para 4(a) of the bail application and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, further the quantity of liquor seized from the possession of the applicant i.e. 60 bulk liters of country made liquor and he is in jail since 14.02.2026 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let applicant, Chitrasen Miri, involved in Crime No. 15/2026, registered at Police Station : Baramkela, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 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 4 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. (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 Kunal