1 CGHC010153312026 2026:CGHC:29394 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3740 of 2026 1 - Amrit Lal Verma S/o Shri Bikhari Ram Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Atariya, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Rahul Netam S/o Late Shri Maansingh Netam Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Atariya, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho Police Station - Dhamdha, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Monika Singh Thakur, P.L. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 13/07/2026 1. The present is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), seeking grant of regular bail to the applicants, who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 85/2026 registered at Police Station- Dhamdha, District- Durg, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.03.2026, acting upon a secret information that the present applicants were in illegal possession of liquor, the police party of the concerned Police Station proceeded to the spot and conducted a search. During the search, 31 bottles of 180 ml each of English Goa Special Whisky valued at ₹3,720/- and 30 bottles of 180 ml each of country-made liquor valued at ₹2,400/-, totaling 61 bottles (10.980 bulk litres), were allegedly recovered and seized from the conscious possession of the applicants. On the basis of the said recovery, the present offence was registered against the applicants, and after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the criminal antecedents of the applicant No.1- Amrit Lal Verma have already been duly explained. It is submitted that, apart from the antecedents already placed on record, the remaining criminal 3 cases have also been disclosed by filing a covering memo along with the relevant documents. Out of the said cases, the applicant has been acquitted in one case, two cases have already been disposed of upon payment of fine, one case is pending trial and in one case the record is presently not available. Thus, there is no suppression of any criminal antecedent on the part of the applicant, and the same may be considered while adjudicating the present bail application. He further submits that both the applicants have remained in judicial custody since 30.03.2026. Since the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, it is prayed that the applicants be enlarged on regular bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that, considering the criminal antecedents of applicant No.1, the nature and gravity of the allegations and the material collected during the course of investigation, the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, it is prayed that the bail applications be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the period of custody undergone by the applicants since 30.03.2026, this Court is of the opinion that further custodial interrogation of the applicants is not required. So far as the criminal antecedents of applicant No.1, Amrit Lal Verma, are concerned, the same have 4 been duly explained and brought on record by the applicants. Considering that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of regular bail to the applicants. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail applications deserve to be and are hereby allowed. 7. Let the applicants, namely Amrit Lal Verma and Rahul Netam, involved in Crime No. 85/2026 registered at Police Station- Dhamdha, District- Durg, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of Chhattisgarh Excise Act, be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed 5 against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants 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 them in accordance with law. 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. 6 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Ruchi