1 CGHC010218822026 2026:CGHC:28681 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5083 of 2026  Jitendra Kumar Roy S/o Ram Balak Ray Aged About 35 Years R/o Tanki Maroda Durg Chowk Newai Police Station Newai District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus  State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer Police Station Utai District Durg C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, P.L. 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 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 206/2026 registered at Police Station – Utai, Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of Excise Act. RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 2. As per the brief facts of the prosecution case, the police received secret information from an informant that on 21.04.2026 two persons from village Zoratarai were transporting illicit liquor on a Passion Pro motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-07-LW-6118. Acting upon the said information, the police intercepted the said motorcycle on the Utai–Zoratarai Road and conducted a search. During the search, the police allegedly recovered 35 quarters of Sholay Masala country-made liquor, manufactured by Chhattisgarh Distilleries Limited, Village Kapri, Kumhari, District Durg, bearing Batch No. 223 dated 18.04.2026. Each quarter contained 180 ml of liquor, aggregating to 6.3 litres, valued at Rs.100/- per quarter, amounting to a total value of Rs.3,500/-. The aforesaid motorcycle, valued at approximately Rs.10,000/-, was also seized. It is alleged that the accused persons failed to produce any valid document or licence in respect of the seized liquor. Consequently, a case was registered against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested for the commission of the alleged offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and the applicant is in jail since 21.04.2026. It is further argued by him that under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years and the conclusion 3 of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. It is further submitted that the applicant has one criminal antecedent under the Excise Act. In view of the nature of the allegations and the applicant's criminal antecedent, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon considering the rival submissions, the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has been in judicial custody since 21.04.2026, the offence is triable by the competent Court, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the view that further pre-trial detention of the applicant is not warranted. The criminal antecedent pointed out by the State, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is not sufficient, by itself, to deny the benefit of bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. 7. Let applicant, Jitendra Kumar Roy, involved in Crime No. 206/2026 registered at Police Station – Utai, Durg (C.G.), for the 4 offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of Excise Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount 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 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. 5 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously from the receipt of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 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 Ruchi