1 CGHC010283372026 2026:CGHC:31731 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6663 of 2026 1 - Mukesh Navrange @ Najru S/o Harihar Navrange, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Gadadih, Tehsil - Patan, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Particulars Of The Applicants Are Mentioned Correctly) 2 - Raju @ Ramcharan Kosare, S/o Mangaldas Kosare, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village - Gadadih, Tehsil - Patan, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Particulars Of The Applicants Are Mentioned Correctly) ...Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Utai, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 24.07.2026 1. The applicants have preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 217/2026, registered at Police Station Utai, District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.25 13:03:50 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution in brief, is that, on 23.04.2026, the police authorities received secret information that certain persons were looking for buyers to sell illicit liquor. Acting upon the said information, the police reached near Utai Liquor Shop Road and intercepted co- accused Mukesh Navrange. Upon his search, 99 bulk litres of liquor along with a motorcycle were allegedly seized. During the course of investigation, the memorandum statement of co-accused Mukesh Navrange was recorded, wherein he allegedly disclosed the involvement of the present applicants, stating that they were accompanying him but fled from the spot on noticing the police party from a distance. On the basis of the said memorandum statement and the material collected during the investigation, the present applicants were implicated in the case. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court, and the applicants were remanded to judicial custody. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case, and there is no cogent material to connect them with the alleged offence. It is submitted that the applicants have been implicated merely on suspicion and on the basis of the memorandum statement of co- accused Mukesh Navrange. Insofar as applicant No. 2 is concerned, he was neither present at the spot nor has any liquor or other incriminating article been recovered from his possession. It is further submitted that there is no direct evidence to establish the involvement of the applicants in the alleged offence. The investigation has been completed, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and therefore no 3 further custodial interrogation is required. The learned trial Court rejected the bail application mainly on the ground of criminal antecedents; however, most of the earlier cases are old and the applicants have been acquitted in several of them. The applicants have remained in judicial custody for more than two months, are permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title, there is no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and they undertake to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that, although the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed, the applicants are not entitled to the benefit of regular bail in view of their criminal antecedents applicant No. 1 – Mukesh Navrange @ Najru has a long criminal history. His antecedents include Crime No. 87/2013 registered at Police Station Utai under Sections 294, 323 and 506 IPC (acquitted); Crime No. 253/2015 under Section 34(3) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act (acquitted vide RCC No. 512/2015 dated 16.06.2017); Crime No. 110/2016 under Section 34(3) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act (acquitted vide RCC No. 188/2016 dated 28.07.2017); Crime No. 24/2018 under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 IPC (acquitted vide RCC No. 92/2018 dated 17.08.2022); Crime No. 250/2021 under Section 34(1) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act (acquitted vide RCC No. 310/2021 dated 24.04.2023); Crime No. 351/2021 under Section 34(1) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act (acquitted vide RCC No. 549/2021 dated 4 27.04.2023); Crime No. 466/2022 under Section 36(F) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act (acquitted vide RCC No. 499/2022 dated 12.11.2022); Crime No. 272/2023 under Section 34(1) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, which is pending in RCC No. 706/2023; Crime No. 348/2023 under Section 3 of the Gambling Act, which is pending in RCC No. 14/2024, Crime No. 359/2024 under Section 34(1) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, pending for framing of charge in RCC No. 2044/2024; Crime No. 252/2025 under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, the status of which could not be traced on the e-Courts portal and Crime No. 369/2025 under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, which is pending for framing of charge in RCC No. 2849/2025. 5. 5. It is further submitted that applicant No. 2 – Raju Ramcharan Kosare also has several criminal antecedents, namely Crime No. 352/2021 under Section 34(1) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act (acquitted vide RCC No. 548/2021 dated 12.04.2023), Crime No. 421/2021 under Section 36(C) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act (acquitted vide RCC No. 737/2021 dated 11.12.2021); Crime No. 187/2022 under Section 34(1) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act (acquitted vide RCC No. 237/2022 dated 23.04.2023); Crime No. 377/2023 under Section 34(1) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act (acquitted vide RCC No. 7/2024 dated 14.08.2025); Crime No. 40/2023 under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, the status of which is not available on the e- Courts portal; Crime No. 163/2024 under Section 34(1) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, the status of which is also not available on the e-Courts portal; and Crime No. 328/2025 under Section 34(1) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, which is pending for framing of charge in 5 RCC No. 2854/2025. 6. Learned State Counsel contended that the repeated registration of criminal cases of a similar nature against both applicants, particularly under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, clearly indicates their propensity to indulge in similar offences and prima facie reflects that they are habitual offenders. It is submitted that the acquittal of the applicants in some of the earlier cases does not wipe out the fact that several similar criminal cases are still pending against them. Therefore, if released on bail, there is every likelihood that the applicants may again indulge in similar illegal activities or misuse the liberty granted by this Court, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for regular bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also taking into account the fact that applicant No. 1 has 12 criminal antecedents and applicant No. 2 has seven criminal antecedents, several of which are still pending, which prima facie indicates that the applicants are habitual offenders, and further in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that criminal antecedents are a relevant consideration while deciding an application for bail, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not warrant the grant of regular bail to the applicants. 9. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Mukesh Navrange 6 @ Najru & Raju @ Ramcharan Kosare, involved in Crime No. 217/2026, registered at Police Station Utai, District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, is rejected. Sd/- (RavindraKumar Agrawal) Judge vaibhav