1 2026:CGHC:23756 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4713 of 2026 Surendra Saytode S/o Sudharu Saytode Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Khainda (Damru) Police Station City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station City Kotwali Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.06.2026 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 137/2026 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34 (2) of C.G. Excise Act. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. Earlier the first bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 2775/2026 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.03.2026, on the ground of criminal antecedents. Hence, the bail application. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.02.2026, the police Station City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar, while on routine patrolling and crime detection duty, received secret information that the present applicant along with co-accused was illegally transporting liquor between village Medh and Damru. Acting upon the said information, the police reached the spot and apprehended the accused persons. It is alleged that from their possession, 20 bottles of country liquor (Masala) and 20 bottles of Besto Rare Whisky, each containing 180 ml, totaling 7.200 bulk liters of liquor, were seized. Thereafter, the police registered Crime No. 137/2026 under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and arrested the applicant and since then he is in judicial custody. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant, being MCRC No. 2775/2026, was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.03.2026 on account of the applicant's criminal antecedents, namely two cases registered under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. It is further submitted that the present second bail application has been filed on the basis of a substantial change in circumstances, inasmuch as out of six prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, two witnesses have already been examined before the trial Court and one of them has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. Learned counsel further submits that the offence under Section 3 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act is punishable with a minimum sentence of one year and a maximum sentence of three years. It is also submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 15.02.2026 and has undergone a substantial period of incarceration. The trial is still in progress and its conclusion is likely to take considerable further time. Therefore, considering the subsequent development during trial, the period of detention already undergone by the applicant and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on 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 applicant, being MCRC No. 2775/2026, was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.03.2026 after considering the facts of the case as well as the criminal antecedents of the applicant. It is submitted that no substantial change in circumstances has taken place subsequent to the rejection of the earlier bail application so as to entitle the applicant to the grant of bail. She further submits that the applicant is a habitual offender and two criminal cases registered against him under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act are still pending before the competent Court. Merely because two prosecution witnesses have been examined and one of them has turned hostile cannot be treated as a significant change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the applicant's prayer for bail. Considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant, the nature and gravity of the allegations and the possibility of the applicant indulging in similar activities upon 4 release, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present second bail application deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary with utmost circumspection. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the first bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 2775/2026, was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.03.2026 on the ground that the applicant had two criminal antecedents under the Excise Act and further considering that the only new ground raised in the present second bail application is that out of six prosecution witnesses, two witnesses have been examined and one of them has turned hostile, this Court is of the view that no substantial change in circumstances has occurred subsequent to the rejection of the earlier bail application so as to warrant reconsideration of the prayer for bail. It is also noteworthy that the applicant is having two criminal antecedents under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, both of which are still pending consideration before the competent Court and thus he appears to be a habitual offender, further he has misused the bail granted to him earlier and that the total quantity of liquor seized is 7.200 bulk liters and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the 5 opinion that this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant- Surendra Saytode, filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, involved in Crime No. 137/2026 registered at Police Station- City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34 (2) of C.G. Excise Act, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal