1 2026:CGHC:24652 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4964 of 2026 Harsh Yadav S/o Santosh Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Tongpal, P.S. Tongpal District Sukma (C.G.) Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chhindgarh District Sukma (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hariom Rai, PL Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 18.06.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First 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. 21/2026, registered at Police Station Chhindgarh District Sukma (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act. RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.06.18 16:46:13 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.03.2026, the police received secret information that an unknown person was in possession of and selling illicit liquor. Acting upon the said information, the police conducted a raid and allegedly recovered and seized 57.120 bulk litres of foreign liquor from the possession of co-accused Anish Kumar Pondi. On the basis of the memorandum statement of the said co-accused, the present applicant came to be implicated and was subsequently arrested. Consequently, Crime No. 21/2026 was registered against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. He further submits that the co-accused, Anish Kumar Pondi, from whose possession the liquor was seized, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 04.06.2026 passed in MCRC No. 5094/2026. He would further submit that the applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused. He submits that the offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act is punishable with imprisonment ranging from one year to three years. The applicant is in judicial custody since 17.04.2026 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays that the applicant be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent 3 Court. He submits that 57.120 bulk litres of foreign liquor was seized during the course of investigation and that the present applicant has been implicated on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, he submits that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant, the fact that no recovery has been effected from the possession of the present applicant, that he has been implicated on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused, that the co-accused from whose possession the liquor was seized has already been enlarged on bail, and further considering that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has already been filed and he is in judicial custody since 17.04.2026, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to release the applicant on regular bail. 7. Let the applicant, Harsh Yadav involved in Crime No. 21/2026, registered at Police Station Chhindgarh Dist. Sukma (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, 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 4 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 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul