1 2026:CGHC:26324 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5614 of 2026 Omkar Garg S/o Uttam Garg Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Mohara, Tehsil Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.06.2026 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. 127/2025 registered at Police Station Dongargarh, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and Section 111, 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2025 passed in MCRC No. 6945 of 2025 on the ground of the applicant’s criminal antecedents. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.01 11:29:41 +0530 2 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that upon receiving information from an informer, the respondent police, on 29.03.2025, conducted a raid at a farm allegedly belonging to Rohit Netam and recovered 3,888 bulk litres of illicit liquor. Thereafter, the respondent police registered the FIR against the accused persons, recorded the memorandum statement of the present applicant, and subsequently arrayed other accused persons, including the present applicant, in the said offence. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant in view of the changed circumstances, namely, the delay in the conclusion of the trial. Out of the 25 prosecution witnesses, only 8 have been examined to date. Further, 15 co-accused have already been enlarged on regular bail by the Hon’ble High Court, and one co-accused, who also has criminal antecedents under the Excise Act, has been granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 17050/2025 vide order dated 13.01.2026. It is further submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 05.04.2025, and as the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, learned counsel prays for the grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant's first bail application was rejected on the ground that the applicant has 04 criminal antecedents under the Excise Act, which are stated to be still pending. He further submits that although the co-accused, namely, Chumman Sihna, was granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 17050/2025, while granting such relief, the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically clarified that, “It is, however, clarified that this order, per se, shall not be a precedent to be followed in other cases.” 3 Therefore, it is submitted that the applicant cannot claim parity with the said co-accused. It is further contended that, in the absence of any new ground warranting reconsideration, the second bail application filed by the present applicant is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the case diary as well as the material available on record, this Court finds that the applicant's first bail application was rejected on merits, taking note of his criminal antecedents under the Excise Act. The principal ground urged in the present second bail application is the delay in the conclusion of the trial. Although it is true that out of 25 prosecution witnesses, only 8 have been examined so far and the applicant has remained in jail since 05.04.2025. So far as the plea of parity is concerned, this Court finds that the co-accused, Chumman Sihna, was granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with a specific clarification that the said order shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. Therefore, the applicant cannot claim parity on the strength of the said order. Furthermore, no other substantial change in circumstances has been demonstrated so as to warrant reconsideration of the earlier order rejecting bail. In view of the applicant's criminal antecedents, the nature of the allegations, and in the absence of any sufficient change in circumstances, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Second bail application of the applicant is entitled to be rejected. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant - Omkar Garg, involved in Crime No. 127/2025 registered at Police Station Dongargarh, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and Section 111, 338, 336(3) and 4 340(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously within a period of six months on day to day basis from the receipt of receipt of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 10. The Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh, is directed to ensure that the prosecution witnesses in the present case appear before the concerned trial Court for the recording of their statements. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, through the learned State Counsel for information and necessary action forthwith. 12. Registrar (Judicial) 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 Abhishek