1 2026:CGHC:5279 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1023 of 2026 1 - Chaitram Khairwar S/o Dharam Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Tempabhatha, Paterapali Police Station Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) 2 - Karam Singh S/o Jageswar Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Tempabhatha, Paterapali Police Station Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Excise Cirlce Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicants : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 196/2025-2026, registered at Police Station – Excise Circle Sakti, District – Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(1) (p) and 34(2) of C.G. Excise Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that That, as per prosecution story in brief is that on 25.11.2025 the Excise Circle Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) has received secret information thereafter raid at Village VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.02.02 10:51:00 +0530 2 Paterapali, District Sakti, and found that Chaitram Khairwar was making Mahua liquor and one other person has absconded thereafter concern Excise Circle Sakti has recorded memorandum of Chaitram Khairwar in which he has stated that the absconded person was his uncle Karam Singh and seized the hand-made Mahua liquor 35 bulk liter and 500 kg Mahua Lahan from the possession of the applicant no.1, therefore FIR has been registered against the applicant. Hence this bail application. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case and there is no criminal antecedents registered against the applicant No.1 and applicant No.2 has two previous criminal antecedent, out of which one is under the Excise Act. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. He further submits that under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years. The applicants are in jail since 25.11.2025 and 29.12.2025 respectively and trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there are two criminal antecedents registered against the applicant No.2, and same are mentioned at paragraph No.4(a) in the bail application and the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. It is further submitted that a total of 35 liters of Mahua liquor and 500 kg Mahua Lahan has been seized from the possession of the present applicant, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that there are no criminal antecedents registered against the applicant, No.1 and applicant No.2 has two criminal antecedent, out of which only one case registered under the Excise Act, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicants and they are in jail since 25.11.2025 and 29.12.2025 respectively and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Let applicants Chaitram Khairwar and Karam Singh involved in Crime No.196/2025-2026, registered at Police Station – Excise Circle Sakti, District – Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(1)(p) and 34(2) of C.G. Excise Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 sufficient 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 4 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 sufficient 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. Office 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 vaishali