1 CGHC010286032026 2026:CGHC:32705 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6848 of 2026 Chhabilal Nayak S/o Kumar Singh Nayak Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Khaira, P.S. Saliha, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Non-applicant/State(s) : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2026 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 268/2026 registered at Police Station Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 5248 of 2026 vide order dated 10.07.2026 on the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 ground that, though the applicant had two criminal antecedents, he failed to disclose the status of both the cases, whether they were pending or had resulted in acquittal. Hence, the present second bail application. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.05.2026, the concerned Police Station received secret information through an informer that an unknown person was in possession of illicit country-made liquor for the purpose of sale near Bamhani Road. Acting upon the said information, the police reached the spot and conducted a search, during which 15 litres of country-made Mahua liquor was allegedly seized from the possession of the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant was served with a notice requiring him to produce a valid licence or permit for possession of the said liquor; however, he failed to produce any such document. Consequently, an offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act was registered against the applicant. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 5248 of 2026 vide order dated 10.07.2026 on the ground that although the applicant had two criminal antecedents, he had failed to disclose the status of both the cases, whether they were pending or had resulted in acquittal. Hence, the present second bail application has been filed. He further submits that in the present bail 3 application, the applicant has duly explained his criminal antecedents in Part-D of the application. Out of the two criminal antecedents, one case has culminated in acquittal, whereas one case registered under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act of the year 2023 is still pending. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 21.05.2026, the investigation has been completed, the charge-sheet has already been filed, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. It is, therefore, prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the applicant has two criminal antecedents, out of which one case has resulted in acquittal, whereas one case registered under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act in the year 2023 is still pending. It is submitted that the applicant is a habitual offender and has indulged in similar offences in the past. Therefore, looking to his criminal antecedents and the nature of the allegations, he is not entitled to the benefit of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations and the quantity of liquor allegedly seized from the possession of the applicant and the fact that the first bail application was rejected solely on the ground that the applicant had not disclosed the status of his criminal antecedents and that in 4 the present second bail application the applicant has duly explained that out of his two criminal antecedents, one case has ended in acquittal and only one case under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act of the year 2023 is pending, coupled with the fact that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 21.05.2026, the investigation has been completed, the charge-sheet has already been filed, no further custodial interrogation is required and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of regular bail to the applicant, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 9. Let applicant, Chhabilal Nayak, involved in Crime No. 268/2026 registered at Police Station Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) 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 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. 5 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. 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 Kunal