1 CGHC010228632026 2026:CGHC:34818 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6084 of 2026 1 - Ajit Dhritlehre S/o Late Narottam Dhritlehre Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Porabhata Murra, P.S. Kharora, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Poshan Lal Dhiwar S/o Murlilal Dhiwar Aged About 22 Years R/o Raikheda Bhatapara, Ward No. 20, P.S. Kharora, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kharora, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Chakresh Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.08.2026 1. The applicants have preferred this 6rst bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 171/2026 registered at Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.) for the o;ence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.03.2026, while the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Investigating O@cer along with the police sta; was on patrol duty, they received a secret information that two persons were illegally selling liquor. Acting upon the said information, the police conducted a raid wherein co-accused Ishwar @ Bittu Tandon was apprehended red-handed while selling illicit liquor. During search, 120 quarters of country-made liquor (total 21.600 bulk litres) and cash amount of Rs.3,600/- alleged to be sale proceeds were seized from his possession. It is further alleged that the present applicants Ajit Dhritlehre and Poshan Lal Dhiwar Eed away from the spot. On the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused and after investigation, the present applicants were arrested and charge-sheet has been 6led against them. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that no liquor or any incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of either of the applicants or from the restaurant allegedly managed by them and their implication is solely based upon the memorandum statement of the co-accused. He further submits that on the date of the alleged incident, the applicants were not present at the place of occurrence and had gone along with their family members to Giroudpuri temple, which is supported by photographs and their mobile location. He further submits that the investigation has been completed and charge- sheet has already been 6led and therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicants is required. He also submits that the applicants are in jail since 29.03.2026 and the conclusion of trial is 3 likely to take considerable time. He further fairly submits that applicant No.1 has six criminal antecedents, all of which are pending, including one case under the Excise Act, whereas applicant No.2 has two criminal antecedents and both are pending, as duly explained in Part-D of the present bail application. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that though no recovery has been e;ected from the present applicants, they have been implicated on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused and the material collected during investigation. He further submits that charge-sheet has already been 6led before the competent Court. It is further submitted that applicant No.1 namely Ajit Dhritlehre has four criminal cases under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act pertaining to the years 2023 and 2024, out of which three cases i.e. Crime No.389/2023, Crime No.478/2024 and Crime No.389/2024 are still pending and therefore, he is a habitual o;ender. So far as applicant No.2 namely Poshan Lal Dhiwar is concerned, it is submitted that he has one criminal case under the IPC besides explained criminal history of applicant No.2. Accordingly, it is prayed that the bail applications be rejected. 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, the nature of allegations levelled against the applicants, the fact that no recovery has been e;ected from applicant No.1 and his 4 implication is based on the memorandum statement of the co- accused but this Court is of the considered opinion that applicant No.1 namely Ajit Dhritlehre is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that applicant No.1 has several criminal antecedents and more particularly, has four criminal cases under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act relating to the years 2023 and 2024, out of which three cases i.e. Crime No.389/2023, Crime No.478/2024 and Crime No.389/2024 are still pending, thereby indicating his repeated involvement in o;ences of similar nature and showing him to be a habitual o;ender, further he has misused the bail granted to him earlier, and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Court in Deepak Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a 6t case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Ajit Dhritlehre, involved in Crime No. 171/2026 registered at Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.) for the o;ence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, is rejected. 7. Whereas applicant No.2 namely Poshan Lal Dhiwar is concerned, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that no recovery has been e;ected from his possession, his implication is primarily based on the memorandum statement of the co-accused, the investigation has been completed 5 and charge-sheet has already been 6led, the period of detention of the applicant No.2 and the conclusion of trial is likely to take some more time. This Court has also taken into consideration that so far as applicant No.2 is concerned, he has two criminal antecedents which are pending, as explained by the learned counsel for the applicant in Part-D of the present bail application and no previous criminal antecedent under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act has been brought to the notice of this Court. Therefore, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant No.2 namely Poshan Lal Dhiwar deserves to be enlarged on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant No.2 namely Poshan Lal Dhiwar is allowed. 9. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant No. 2 – Poshan Lal Dhiwar, involved in Crime No. 171/2026 registered at Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.) for the o;ence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 6le an undertaking to the e;ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 6xed 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 6 on each date 6xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su@cient 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 6xed 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 6xed 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 su@cient 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal