1 CGHC010165612026 2026:CGHC:28944 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3845 of 2026 Nohar Verma S/o Dushyant Verma Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Anyanawagaon, Police Station- Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) --- Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station- Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) --- Respondent MCRC No. 4523 of 2026 Prahlad Nirmalkar S/o Kuman Nirmalkar Aged About 22 Years Resident Of Village Saloni, Tahsil And Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) --- Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.07.2026 1. Since both the bail applications are arising out of the same crime number, therefore, they are being heard together and decided by this common order. 2 2. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 87 of 2026, registered at Police Station – Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) & 36 read with Section 3 (5) of the C.G. Excise Act (as per charge- sheet). 3. The case of the prosecution, is that the Police of Police Station – Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) has received a secret information through the informant and on the basis of such information the Police has seized a total of 32.400 bulk liters illicit liquor from the joint possession of the applicants. Thereafter, the applicants have been arrested by the Police and the offence was registered. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case, as there is no material available on record to connect them with the crime in question. He further submits that no criminal antecedent has been reported against the present applicants. He further submits that under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years. The applicants are languishing is in jail since 17.02.2026; charge-sheet has already been filed in this case and trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, they are entitled to be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there is no criminal antecedents reported against the present applicants and the charge sheet has been filed in 3 this case. It is further submitted that total 32.400 bulk liter illicit liquor has been seized from the joint possession of the present applicants, therefore, they are not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicants and the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed in this case and no criminal antecedents has been reported against the present applicants; they are in detention since 17.02.2026 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this bail application filed by the applicants. 8. Let applicants namely, Nohar Verma and Prahlad Nirmalkar, involved in Crime No. 87 of 2026, registered at Police Station – Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) & 36 read with Section 3 (5) of the C.G. Excise Act (as per charge-sheet), be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with 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 4 their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed 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. 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 AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.07.13 15:48:18 +0530 5