1 CGHC010275762026 2026:CGHC:31725 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.Cr.C No.6541 of 2026 Toshan Kumar Miri S/o Manaram Miri Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Dhobghatti, Police Station Nandghat, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Nandghat, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Non-applicant _____________________________________________________ For Applicant :Mr. Khilendra Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant :Mr. Shubham Bajpai, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 24.07.2026 1. Heard. 2. The Applicant, who has been arrested on 16.05.2026 in connection with Crime No.114/2026 registered at Police SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.07.25 12:03:44 +0530 2 Station – Nandghat, District Bemetara (C.G.), for the offence under Section 34(2) of CG Excise Act, is claiming regular bail. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.05.2026, on the basis of secret information, the Police of Police Station Nandghat intercepted the present Applicant near Tarpongi Tiraha, Village Nandghat and seized 8.82 bulk liters of country-made liquor from his possession. Thereafter, the FIR was registered and the Applicant was arrested. 4. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the Applicant is in jail since 16.05.2026, investigation has been completed, charge-sheet has been filed and as the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, he may be enlarged on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the present Applicant has six previous criminal antecedents, out of which four are registered under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. It is further submitted that out of the said four cases, one is pending before the learned trial Court, the remaining antecedents comprise one offence under the IPC and one preventive action initiated against the Applicant. It is, therefore, 3 contended that the Applicant is a habitual offender and is not entitled to be granted regular bail. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case dairy carefully. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the material collected during the investigation and further considering that the present Applicant has four previous criminal antecedents under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and one under the IPC, one of the cases under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act is already pending before the learned trial Court and that preventive action has also been initiated against him, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the present Applicant. 8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Priya