1 2026:CGHC:10772 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 51 of 2026 1 - Jhaduram Sonwani S/o Kaushal Sonwani, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Memra, P.S. Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Hemant Sonwani S/o Jhaduram Sonwani Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Memra, P.S. Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Devendra Sonwani S/o Jhaduram Sonwani Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Memra, P.S. Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Pithora District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02/03/2026 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. 246/2025 registered at Police Station- Pithora, District- KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, on the date of the incident the police, during patrolling, received information from an informant that the applicants had stored illegal liquor in their house for the purpose of sale. Acting upon the said information, the police conducted a search and allegedly seized 50 litres of country-made Mahua (Kachchi) liquor from the house of the applicants. On the basis of the said seizure, a case has been registered against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and they have no nexus with the incident alleged by the prosecution. It is submitted that no illicit liquor has been seized from the conscious possession of the applicants and the alleged seizure has been made from an open and accessible place used by the general public, therefore, the applicants have been falsely implicated. 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. So far as the criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, applicant No.1 has one previous criminal case of similar nature in which he has already been acquitted, whereas the remaining applicants have no criminal antecedents. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, the applicants are in custody since 22.12.2025 and the conclusion of the 3 trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, the applicants pray for grant of regular bail. 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 had one criminal antecedent of similar nature and rest applicants have no criminal antecedents further the quantity of liquor seized from the possession of the applicants i.e. 50 liters of country made Kachchi Mahuwa liquor. 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. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicants and the fact 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 had one criminal antecedent of similar nature and rest applicants have no criminal antecedents further the quantity of liquor seized from the possession of the applicants i.e. 50 liters of country made Kachchi Mahuwa liquor and further they are in jail since 22.12.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicants. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants is allowed. 4 8. Let the applicants – Jhaduram Sonwani, Hemant Sonwani and Devendra Sonwani, involved in Crime No. 246/2025 registered at Police Station- Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 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 accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 (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. 9. 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