1 2026:CGHC:12133 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1438 of 2026 1 - Sevakram Netam S/o Olsingh Netam Aged About 42 Years R/o Vill- Ghunchapali, P.S. Bagbahara And Tehsil Bagbahara, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Pawan Bariha S/o Tiko Bariha Aged About 42 Years R/o Vill-Ghunchapali, P.S. Bagbahara And Tehsil Bagbahara, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Bagbahara Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Anway Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.03.2026 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 applicant who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 06/2026 registered at Police Station - Bagbahara District - Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.03.16 11:40:04 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.01.2026, the police of Police Station Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) received secret information from an informant that some persons were coming from Village Bokramuda Khurd to Village Ghuchapali on a black- coloured motorcycle carrying country-made liquor. Acting on the said information, a raid was conducted by the Head Constable near Village Junwani Kalan, and a total of 15 bulk litres of country plain liquor was seized from the possession of the accused, which was allegedly kept illegally. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 34(2) and 59A(1) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act against the applicants, and to the best of their knowledge, there are no previous criminal antecedents against them. It is further submitted that the disposal of the case will take considerable time and it would not be desirable to keep the applicants languishing in jail during the pendency of the trial. The Court below has erred in rejecting the bail application by stretching its reasoning beyond what is permissible under law. The applicants submit that the intoxicant allegedly seized was found in sealed condition as issued by the State Government under lawful authority and the term “Bulk Liter” has not been specifically defined in the Act; therefore, the provisions of Section 34(2) and/or Section 59A of the Act do not appear to be applicable in the present case. The continued detention of the applicants would amount to pre-trial punishment, which ought to be 3 avoided. The applicants are the sole bread earners of their families and their continued incarceration would cause severe hardship to their dependents. The applicants have never been of a threatening nature and there is no likelihood of their tampering with the prosecution witnesses if released on bail. The applicants are permanent residents of the address mentioned in the cause title and have deep roots in society; therefore, there is no possibility of their absconding. The applicants are ready to furnish adequate surety and undertake to abide by all the directions and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case and that the applicants have three previous criminal antecedent, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicants, and further taking into account that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court, the applicants have remained in jail since 09.01.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicants. 7. Let the Applicants – Sevakram Netam & Pawan Bariha, involved in Crime No. 06/2026 registered at Police Station - Bagbahara District - 4 Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local 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 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 applicants 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 his 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 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 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 them 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 Vaibhav