1 CGHC010272702026 2026:CGHC:30461 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6429 of 2026 Ramprakash S/o Bhaguram Aged About 40 Years Caste- Panika R/o Girwarganj P.S. Tahsil And District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Excise Circle, Surajpur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pavas Sharma, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 17.07.2026 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. 04/2026, registered at Police Station- Excise Circle Surajpur, District- Surajpur, (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(1)(a)(c), 34(2) & 59(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 03.07.2026, acting upon a secret information, the Excise District Level Flying Squad, Surajpur, conducted a search of the house of the appellant/accused. During RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 the search, the excise officials allegedly recovered 18 litres of illicit hand-made country liquor prepared from Mahua and 60 kilograms of Mahua Lahan, which was allegedly being possessed and stored in contravention of the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915. On the basis of the said recovery, Crime No. 04/2026 was registered against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 34(1)(a)(c), 34(2) and 59(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, and investigation was undertaken. Hence, the present case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is contended that the alleged recovery has been falsely shown by the Excise Department and that the applicant had kept only a small quantity of Mahua liquor for the use of labourers engaged in agricultural activities, but the quantity has been deliberately exaggerated by the excise officials. He further submits that the applicant has been in jail since 03.07.2026 and his further custodial detention is no longer required. It is also submitted that the charge- sheet is yet to be filed, and the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation as well as the trial. He points out that although certain previous cases have been referred to by the prosecution, three of them, namely Istgasa No. 63/2012, Istgasa No. 576/2017 and Istgasa No. 248/2024 registered under Sections 107 and 116(3) Cr.P.C., were merely preventive proceedings which have already been closed. It is further submitted that in Crime No. 3 97/2017 registered under Section 34(1) of the Excise Act, the applicant has been acquitted, while the only other case, namely Crime No. 427/2023 under Section 34(1)(a) of the Excise Act, is still pending adjudication and cannot be treated as proof of guilt. It is thus argued that no adverse inference can be drawn against the applicant on the basis of the aforesaid cases and, considering the nature of the allegations, the period of incarceration already undergone, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case the charge-sheet has not been filed before the competent Court. She also submits that the applicant is involved in a serious offence under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, wherein a substantial quantity of 18 litres of illicit hand-made Mahua liquor and 60 kilograms of Mahua Lahan was allegedly recovered from his possession pursuant to a search conducted by the Excise District Level Flying Squad, Surajpur. It is contended that the recovery was effected in accordance with law and the allegations are supported by the seizure proceedings and other material collected during investigation. Learned State counsel further submits that the investigation is still in progress and the charge-sheet has not yet been filed, therefore, releasing the applicant at this stage may adversely affect the ongoing investigation. It is also submitted that the applicant has as many as five criminal antecedents to his credit, including previous 4 proceedings under the Excise Act, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender. As such, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the rival submissions, the material available on record and the case diary, this Court finds that the applicant is facing allegations of unlawful possession of 18 litres of hand-made Mahua liquor and 60 kilograms of Mahua Lahan, which were allegedly recovered from his house pursuant to a search conducted by the Excise District Level Flying Squad, Surajpur. The investigation is still at a nascent stage and the charge-sheet has not yet been submitted before the competent Court. Therefore, the investigating agency must be afforded adequate opportunity to complete the investigation and ascertain all relevant facts and circumstances relating to the alleged offence. It is also pertinent to note that the applicant has as many as five criminal antecedents, including previous proceedings under the Excise Act. Although some of the antecedents relate to preventive proceedings and one case has resulted in acquittal, the overall criminal history of the applicant reflects his repeated involvement in matters relating to breach of law and cannot be ignored at the stage of consideration of bail. The pendency of another excise case against the applicant further lends support to the prosecution’s contention that he is a habitual offender, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble 5 Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Ramprakash, involved in Crime No. 04/2026, registered at Police Station- Excise Circle Surajpur, District- Surajpur, (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(1)(a)(c), 34(2) & 59(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, is rejected. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Rahul Dewangan