1 CGHC010256622026 2026:CGHC:32115 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6012 of 2026 Sanjay Kumar Jangde S/o Ratnuram Jangde Aged About 38 Years R/o Mudwabhatha Thana- Kosir, Tehsil- Sarangarh District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Kosir Distt.- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Ms. Vidhi Matlani, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 76/2026, registered at Police Station : Kosir, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) and 59(A) of the C.G. Excise Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.05.2026, the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 concerned Police Station received secret information that the applicant was in possession of country-made liquor. Acting upon the said information, a search was conducted, during which 19 bulk litres of country-made liquor (Mahua) were allegedly seized from the possession of the applicant. Thereafter, a notice under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was served upon the applicant requiring him to produce a valid licence or permit, however, he failed to produce any such document. Consequently, the applicant was arrested and after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the said liquor was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant. She further submits that under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years. She further submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has filed before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 25.05.2026 and the applicant has one criminal antecedent of similar nature of the year 2024, which is still pending and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, she prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent of similar nature of the year 2024, which is still pending as the same has been 3 explained in the bail application of part D- criminal antecedent, and further the quantity of liquor seized from the possession of the present applicant i.e. 19 bulk liters of country made mahua liquor 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. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant has only one previous criminal antecedent of similar nature of the year 2024, which has been explained in the bail application of part-D criminal antecedents and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, further the quantity of liquor seized from the possession of the applicant i.e. 19 bulk liters of country made Mahua liquor and he is in jail since 25.05.2026 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let applicant, Sanjay Kumar Jangde, involved in Crime No. 76/2026, registered at Police Station : Kosir, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) and 59(A) of the C.G. Excise Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 4 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant 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 applicant 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 him 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 Kunal