1 2026:CGHC:6562 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1311 of 2026 Kishan Chakradhari S/o Ram Khelawan Chakradhari Aged About 22 Years R/o Sarnapara, Village Bodemuda, P.S. And Tahsil Khadgawan, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O.cer, Police Station Khadgawan, District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur Chhattisgarh ---- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Meena Shastri, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05/02/2026 1. This is the second bail application 4led under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 141/2025 registered at Police Station- Khadgawan, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.), for the o;ence punishable under Sections 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 8244 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 of 2025 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2025 on the ground that the quantity of liquor seized and particularly the fact that there are two previous criminal antecedents of the Excise Act. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.06.2025, the police of Police Station - Khadagawan, District - Mandendragarh - Chirmiri - Bharatpur while on patrolling, received a secret information from an informant and on the basis of the said information, conducted a raid and seized 46.8 bulk liters of Goa Whiskey English Wine from the possession of the applicant. Thereafter the aforesaid o;ence was registered against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed the alleged o;ences and has been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is further submitted that the earlier bail application of the applicant, being MCRC No. 8244 of 2025, was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2025, primarily on the ground of the quantity of liquor seized and the existence of two previous criminal antecedents under the Excise Act. The new ground for 4ling the present (second) bail application is that, as per the prosecution case, 46.8 bulk litres of Goa Whisky (English liquor) were allegedly seized from the possession of the applicant in the presence of two prosecution witnesses, namely Ishwar Prasad and Vansh Kumar. Both these witnesses have now been examined before the trial Court as PW-01 and PW-02, respectively, and it is pertinent to submit that they have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile. The applicant is in jail since 3 24.06.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 5. On the other hand learned State Counsel, appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submit that the applicant is having two previous criminal antecedents of the same nature and he is a habitual o;ender and this Court already rejected the 4rst bail application of the applicant vide order dated 15.10.2025 in MCRC No.8244/2025. As such, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. From perusal of the case diary, charge-sheet, and material available on record, as well as considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that this is a second bail application 4led by the applicant after rejection of the earlier bail application by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2025 in MCRC No. 8244/2025, wherein the prayer for bail was declined considering the quantity of liquor seized and the existence of two previous criminal antecedents under the Excise Act. The grounds taken in the present application do not constitute any substantial change in circumstances. The mere fact that two material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case at this stage of trial cannot, by itself, be treated as a new ground warranting reconsideration of bail, particularly when the possibility of inCuence on witnesses cannot be ruled out. The applicant is stated to be a habitual o;ender having antecedents of similar nature and the nature of accusation and manner of alleged seizure indicate serious involvement. In view of the criminal history of the applicant, gravity of the o;ence, and absence of any signi4cant new circumstance after rejection of the 4 earlier bail application, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the second bail application stands rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. O.ce is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice kunal