1 2026:CGHC:25385 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5422 of 2026 Mahendra Gardiya S/o- Gangadhar Gardiya, Aged About 22 Years R/o- Village Bhothaldih, Police Station- Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, P.S.- Excise Circle Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22/06/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 06/2026 registered at Police Station- Excise Circle, Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(1), 34(2) and 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, as per secret information received from the informant that the applicant has kept illicit liquor for sell, upon such basis, the concerned police conducted raid and have seized 15 liters of hand made Mahua liquor from the possession of KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 the applicant. Thereafter, the aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, the minimum prescribed punishment is one year and the maximum prescribed punishment is three years. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. The applicant has two previous criminal antecedents, out of which one pertains to an offence under the Excise Act, which is still pending and the other pertains to an offence under the IPC, in which he has been acquitted. The said antecedents have been duly explained in Part-D (Criminal Antecedents) of the bail application. It is also submitted that the applicant is in jail since 14.04.2026 and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, learned counsel prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents, out of which one case registered under the Excise Act is still pending, whereas in the other case registered under the IPC, the applicant has been acquitted. He further submits that in the present case, 15.00 litres of hand-made Mahua liquor have been seized from the possession of the applicant. Although the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, looking to the nature and gravity of the offence and the criminal antecedents of the applicant, he is not entitled to be 3 enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, the fact that the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents, out of which one case registered under the Excise Act is still pending and in the other case registered under the IPC, he has been acquitted and further considering that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, the applicant is in jail since 14.04.2026, 15.00 litres of handmade Mahua liquor have been seized from his possession, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 8. Let the applicant – Mahendra Gardiya, involved in Crime No. 06/2026 registered at Police Station- Excise Circle, Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(1), 34(2) and 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh 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 4 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. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dirurt fo forthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal