1 CGHC010284732026 2026:CGHC:32093 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6746 of 2026 Ratiram Sidar S/o Anjor Singh Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Anwalachakka, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.07.2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 126/2026 registered at Police Station - Saraipali, District Mahasamund, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 15.07.2026 passed in MCRC No. 4066 of 2026 on the ground that he has two previous criminal antecedents RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 of the similar nature. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the police of Police Station- Azad Saraipali, District Mahasamund, (C.G.), received an information from the informant and on the basis of the said information conducted a raid and seized total 30.060 bulk liters of illicit liquor from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, Police has registered an offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act against the present applicant. 4. 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 submitted that this is the second bail application of the applicant, the earlier bail application having been rejected on account of non- disclosure of two previous criminal antecedents. He further submits that the said antecedents have now been mentioned in the present bail application and the acquittal orders. It is further contended that no liquor was recovered from the conscious possession of the present applicant and the alleged seizure was effected from an open place, thereby weakening the prosecution case against him. He further submits that the applicant has not acted in the manner alleged by the prosecution and has been implicated without any cogent material connecting him with the alleged offence. It is also submitted that the applicant is in jail since 12.04.2026, the charge- sheet has already been filed, and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. Therefore, considering the period of 3 incarceration already undergone by the applicant and the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the second bail application of the present applicant and submits that during the course of investigation, 30.060 litres of illicit liquor was seized from the possession of the applicant, thereby directly connecting him with the commission of the offence. She has been pointed out that apart from the two cases registered under the Excise Act, the applicant is involved in four other criminal cases, bearing Crime No. 630/2023 relating to criminal intimidation and offences under the provisions concerning pornography, Crime No. 234/2024 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, Crime No. 486/2021 under Sections 294, 341 and 307 of IPC, and Crime No. 03/2026 under the provisions of the NDPS Act. She submits that the antecedents of the applicant disclose his continuous involvement in serious criminal activities and indicate a criminal propensity. Considering the quantity of liquor seized, the nature of the allegations, and the criminal history of the applicant, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that this is the second bail application filed by the applicant, the first bail application having been rejected earlier on account of non- 4 disclosure of criminal antecedents, and further the fact that though learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he has now disclosed his previous antecedents and has been acquitted in the excise cases, but no document whatsoever has been placed on record to substantiate the said assertion and no acquittal order has been annexed along with the present bail application. Mere pleading regarding acquittal, unsupported by any documentary material, cannot be accepted at its face value. Further, learned State counsel has specifically pointed out that apart from the cases referred to by the applicant, he is also involved in other criminal cases, bearing Crime No. 630/2023 relating to criminal intimidation and pornography-related offences, Crime No. 234/2024 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, Crime No. 486/2021 under Sections 294, 341 and 307 of IPC, and Crime No. 03/2026 under the provisions of the NDPS Act. Significantly, there is no proper disclosure or explanation regarding these criminal antecedents in the present bail application. The conduct of the applicant in not making a full and candid disclosure of his criminal history assumes importance, particularly when the earlier bail application was rejected on a similar ground. Moreover, the prosecution case discloses seizure of 30.060 litres of illicit liquor from the possession of the applicant, prima facie connecting him with the alleged offence. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to make out any substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of his prayer for bail. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit 5 of bail to the applicant and the present second bail application deserves to be and is hereby rejected. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant - Ratiram Sidar, involved in Crime No. 126/2026 registered at Police Station - Saraipali, District Mahasamund, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. 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 Rahul Dewangan