1 2026:CGHC:20964 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4178 of 2026 Rohit Netam S/o Ramesh Netam Aged About 25 Years R/o Thana Chowk, Ward No. 21, Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.05.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second 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. 127/2025, registered at Police Station : Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) and 59(A) of the C.G. Excise Act and Section 111, 338, 340(2), 336(3) of BNS. 2. The Earlier first bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 7189/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.10.2025 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 on the ground of criminal antecedents. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.03.2025, the police received credible information that a huge quantity of illicit liquor had been stored in the farmhouse of one Rohit Netam @ Sonu, situated at Village Karwari, Latmarra Kachcha Road. Acting on the said information, the police party proceeded to the indicated spot, where they discovered a large quantity of illegal liquor allegedly transported from the State of Madhya Pradesh. It was further alleged that the liquor was being kept in the said farmhouse with the intent to refill it into bottles bearing seals and tags of the State of Chhattisgarh for the purpose of illegal sale within the State. Upon inspection, several empty bottles without labels or corks were also found at the site. On visual examination, the seal on the seized liquor indicated that the same had originated from another State and was being prepared for distribution in Chhattisgarh. Consequently, the police seized approximately 3,888 bulk litres of country-made liquor, along with other related articles, from the said farmhouse. Thereafter, a Dehati Nalisi was lodged against the applicant- Rohit Netam @ Sonu, and upon completion of the preliminary inquiry, the case was formally registered. During the course of investigation, several other accused persons were also apprehended for their alleged involvement in the said act. After completion of investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet before the competent Court, alleging commission of the offences as 3 mentioned in the FIR. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant, being MCRC No. 7189/2025, was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.10.2025 on the ground of criminal antecedents, which were nine in number. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, registered as Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 19245/2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.03.2026. It is further submitted that in the present second bail application, a new ground has been raised that out of the aforesaid criminal antecedents, the applicant has been acquitted in five cases, two cases have already been disposed of, and now only one case under the Excise Act is still pending. All the criminal antecedents of the applicants have been duly explained in the bail application at paragraph No. 4(A). He further submits that under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, the minimum punishment prescribed is one year and the maximum punishment is three years. It is also submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 05.04.2025 and the same crime number one co- accused has been granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and 14 other accused have been enlarged on regular bail by this Court and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable time. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be granted regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the first bail application of the 4 applicant, being MCRC No. 7189/2025, has already been rejected by this Court vide order date 10.10.2025. It is further submitted that the so-called new ground raised in the present second bail application is neither substantial nor tenable in the eyes of law. The applicant is a habitual offender having several criminal antecedents, and even as on date, one case under the Excise Act is still pending against him. Considering his past conduct, continuous involvement in similar offences, and the likelihood of repetition of such offences, it is prayed that the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 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, it is observed that the first bail application of the applicant, being MCRC No. 7189/2025, was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.10.2025. Thereafter, the applicant preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 19245/2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.03.2026.In the present second bail application, the applicant has raised a new ground with regard to his criminal antecedents and has submitted that, as on date, only one case under the Excise Act is pending, while the remaining cases have resulted in acquittal or have been disposed of, as explained in paragraph No. 4(A) of the bail application. It is also noted that a huge quantity of liquor has been seized from the farmhouse of the applicant. Further, the applicant has been in custody since 05.04.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. 5 Considering the period of custody of the applicant, the principle of parity with the co-accused, the nature of the offence, and the fact that the trial is likely to take a considerable time, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed. 9. Let applicant, Rohit Netam, involved in Crime No. 127/2025, registered at Police Station : Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) and 59(A) of the C.G. Excise Act and Section 111, 338, 340(2), 336(3) of BNS, 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 6 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. 10. 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