1 2026:CGHC:25906 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5159 of 2026 1 - Vinayak Verma S/o Dhanesh Verma Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Baiharsari Out Post Podi, Police Station Bodla District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Kawardha District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant (s) For Applicant : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. Malay Jain, PL. H on'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu , J Order On Board 24/06/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application for grant of bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime/FIR No.179/2026 registered at Police Station Kabirdham, District Kabirdham for offence under Section 34 (2) of the CG Excise Act. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.06.25 15:22:12 +0530 2 2. This is the 2nd bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to repeat the prayer at appropriate stage vide order dated 21.5.2026 passed in MCRC No.4834/2026. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on receiving secret information that two persons were transporting illicit liquor on unnumbered motorcycle near Kawardha, the concerned police conducted a raid at the place of incident and apprehended the accused persons and recovered/ seized 16.200 bulk liters of country made plain liquor. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime and he has not committed any offence. The earlier application preferred by the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn on account of incorrect submission made by learned State Counsel that there are 3 criminal antecedents registered against the applicant whereas as per the charge sheet filed by the prosecution, only one case was registered against the present applicant, which was clearly mentioned in the bail application. It is also contended that the liquor was not seized from the exclusive possession of the present applicant and the mandatory provisions have also not been followed because of which the seizure itself become doubtful. The offence is triable by the JMFC and the charge sheet has also been filed. As such, the applicant may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would oppose the bail application on submission that there is one more criminal antecedent of similar nature registered against the applicant in the year 2025. 3 6. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the length of pre-trial detention of the applicant, also considering that the charge sheet has been filed, the offence is triable by the JMFC, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Accordingly, the Application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court 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 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. 4 (iv) the applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial Court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge, and (c) 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. (v) If the applicant is found to be involved in similar nature of offence in future, the State would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail in this case. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Barve