1 2026:CGHC:27275 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3724 of 2026 Vicky Kandra S/o Rajendra Kandra Aged About 25 Years R/o Karrapara Bagbahara Police Station Bagbahara District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bagbahara Mahasamund District- Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Virendra kashyap, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 271/2025, registered at Police Station - Bagbahara Mahasamund District - Mahasamund (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that on 08.12.2025, on the basis of information received from an informer, the police party of Police Station Bagbahara allegedly intercepted the applicant while he was VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.03 12:52:47 +0530 2 riding a TVS Jupiter scooter near Pithaura Road, Bagbahara, and upon search, recovered 105 bottles of country-made liquor (total 18.900 litres) from his possession. Since the applicant could not produce any valid license or document, the said liquor was seized and a case under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act was registered against him. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and no recovery has been effected from his conscious and exclusive possession. It is contended that the prosecution case is fraught with material inconsistencies, particularly regarding the identity of the accused, as the applicant's name has been mentioned differently in the FIR itself, thereby creating serious doubt about the prosecution story. It is further submitted that the alleged seizure is doubtful, is not supported by reliable and independent witnesses, and the mandatory provisions relating to search and seizure have not been strictly complied with, rendering the alleged recovery highly questionable. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to establish the applicant's conscious and exclusive possession of the alleged contraband. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed; therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident of District Mahasamund, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing the witnesses. The applicant has been in judicial custody 3 since 08.12.2025, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, and the offence is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is, therefore, contended that the continued incarceration of the applicant would amount to pre-trial punishment and would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The applicant is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court while granting bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposed the bail application and submitted that, although the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail in view of his criminal antecedents. It is submitted that two criminal cases registered against the applicant under the provisions of the Excise Act are still pending before the competent trial Court. Learned State Counsel contends that the pendency of the aforesaid cases reflects the applicant's propensity to indulge in similar offences and indicates that he is a habitual offender. It is, therefore, prayed that the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also taking into account the fact that two cases are pending against the applicant under the Excise Act, which clearly indicates that the applicant is a habitual offender, and further, in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh 4 & Another, (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused on the ground of having previous criminal antecedents, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not warrant the grant of regular bail to the applicant. 7. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Vicky Kandra, involved in Crime No.271/2025, registered at Police Station - Bagbahara Mahasamund District - Mahasamund (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav