1 CGHC010191652026 2026:CGHC:28542 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4487 of 2026 Pritam Rathore S/o Umashankar Rathore Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Khokhra, Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P. S. Janjgir, District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ...Non-Applicant(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Kamlesh Patel, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 267 of 2026 registered at Police Station – Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 10.04.2026, ASI BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.10 10:41:10 +0530 2 Arun Kumar Singh of Police Station Janjgir received secret information from an informer that the applicant was standing in front of his house situated at Village Khokhra, Ward No. 1, with a plastic jerrycan containing illicit raw Mahua liquor, which he intended to sell. Acting upon the said information, the police party proceeded to the spot, conducted a raid and allegedly recovered 23 litres of illicit raw Mahua liquor kept in an Indigo paint plastic container from the possession of the applicant. The liquor was seized in accordance with law, following which the applicant was arrested and the present crime 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. It is contended that no illicit liquor has been recovered from his conscious and exclusive possession and that the alleged seizure has been planted. It is further submitted that although the applicant has criminal antecedents, namely, FIR No. 140 of 2019 registered under Section 36(C) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, FIR No. 408 of 2022 registered under Sections 294, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC, FIR No. 633 of 2023 registered under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act and FIR No. 63 of 2026 registered under Section 3(2) of the Gambling Act, three of the aforesaid cases have already been disposed of and only the case under the NDPS Act is stated to be pending. It is submitted that mere registration of previous cases cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of bail in the present case. It is further submitted that the investigation has 3 been completed, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and, therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. The applicant has remained in judicial custody since 10.04.2026 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. On these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the bail application. It is submitted that the applicant is a habitual offender having four criminal antecedents, including one previous case under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, one case under the NDPS Act, one case involving offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC and another case under the Gambling Act. It is further submitted that the offence registered under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act is still pending against the applicant, which clearly reflects his continuing involvement in criminal activities. The repeated registration of criminal cases against the applicant indicates his propensity to indulge in unlawful activities and, therefore, there is every likelihood that if released on bail, he may again commit similar offences or misuse the liberty granted to him. Considering the nature of the allegations, the quantity of illicit liquor seized from the possession of the applicant, his criminal antecedents and the likelihood of repetition of similar offences, learned State counsel submits that the applicant does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail. It is, therefore, prayed that the bail application be rejected. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the material available on record. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, the nature of allegations, the material available on record, the fact that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, the period of custody undergone by the applicant since 10.04.2026 and the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, this Court is of the opinion that further custodial detention of the applicant is not warranted. Though the applicant has criminal antecedents, it is not in dispute that three of the previous cases have already been disposed of and only one case under the NDPS Act is stated to be pending. At this stage, there is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant is likely to abscond or interfere with the course of trial. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of regular bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant – Pritam Rathore, involved in Crime No. 267 of 2026 registered at Police Station – Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act., be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 5 (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 her 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. 6 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 concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Brijmohan