1 CGHC010242802026 2026:CGHC:32708 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6104 of 2026 Satyapal Norge S/o Dukhu Ram Norge Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Murlidin, Police Station Mulmula, District Janjgir Champa C.G. ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2026 1. This is the first 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. 289/2026, registered at Police Station – Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of the Excise Act. 2. According to the prosecution, on 22.05.2026, the police of Police VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.30 12:18:48 +0530 2 Station Akaltara allegedly received secret information that two persons were transporting country-made liquor on a motorcycle for the purpose of its illegal sale. Acting upon the said information, the police intercepted the applicant and allegedly recovered 90 bottles of country-made plain liquor, measuring 16.200 litres in total, from his possession, on the basis of which an offence under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act came to be registered against him. However, the entire prosecution case rests solely upon the alleged secret information and the purported recovery said to have been effected pursuant thereto. There is no independent, impartial or reliable evidence available on record connecting the applicant with the alleged offence. No independent public witness has supported or corroborated the alleged recovery or the applicant's purported involvement, nor has the prosecution produced any direct evidence to prima facie establish that the applicant was engaged in the alleged illegal transportation or sale of the liquor. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of mere suspicion and surmises. It is contended that the prosecution case rests solely upon the alleged secret information received by the police and the purported recovery allegedly effected pursuant thereto, without there being any independent, impartial or credible evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that no independent public witness has corroborated the alleged recovery, nor has the prosecution produced any direct or circumstantial evidence to prima facie establish that the 3 applicant was in conscious and exclusive possession of the alleged liquor or had any nexus with its illegal transportation or sale. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged liquor as well as the motorcycle have already been seized by the Investigating Agency and, therefore, nothing remains to be recovered from the applicant, rendering his further custodial detention wholly unnecessary. It is also argued that the prosecution case is primarily based upon documentary evidence and official records already in the custody of the prosecution, leaving no reasonable possibility of the applicant tampering with the evidence or influencing the course of investigation or trial. It is further submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of the local area, has deep roots in society, is not likely to abscond or influence the prosecution witnesses, and undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. Lastly, it is contended that the allegations against the applicant are yet to be established during trial, he continues to enjoy the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in accordance with law, and his continued incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment. On these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed. It was further submitted that the applicant has seven criminal antecedents, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence levelled against the applicant, and further taking into account that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court and the applicant has remained in jail since 22.05.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Let applicant, Satyapal Norge, involved in Crime No. 289/2026, registered at Police Station – Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of the Excise Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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 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. 5 (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. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav