1 CGHC010335572026 2026:CGHC:38902 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8177 of 2026 Santabai W/o Late Sampyara Madhukar, Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 01 Basna, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Basna, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Gayatri Chauhan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.09.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 319/2026, 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 prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.06.2026, the Police of Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.), recovered VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.09.02 16:41:10 +0530 2 200 bulk litres of homemade Mahua liquor from the possession of the present applicant. Accordingly, the applicant was apprehended and a case was registered against him under the relevant provisions of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; that the applicant is a widow and has a minor child aged about 8 years, who is wholly dependent upon her, and there is no one else to look after the child; that the husband of the applicant died on 03.08.2023 and the minor child has no other sibling; that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant has been in custody since 14.06.2026; that the alleged liquor was not recovered from the exclusive possession of the applicant and a false seizure memo has been prepared by the police; that the mandatory procedure prescribed during the course of investigation has not been followed by the police; that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title and there is no likelihood of her absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses; and that the applicant is ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the applicant may kindly be released on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the 3 State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. It is further submitted that the present applicant has as many as two criminal antecedents, namely, Crime Nos. 85 of 2023 and 636 of 2022, both of similar nature. It is contended that the aforesaid criminal antecedents prima facie indicate that the applicant is a habitual offender having a tendency to indulge in similar criminal activities. It is further submitted that, if the applicant is released on bail, there is every likelihood of his repeating similar offences and adversely affecting public peace and order. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the criminal antecedents of the applicant and the likelihood of misuse of the liberty of bail, the applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering that the applicant has not disclosed his two criminal antecedents before this Court, it appears that he has suppressed a material fact. The criminal antecedents of the applicant show that he is a habitual offender. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 8 SCC 559, has held that the criminal antecedents of an accused are an important factor while considering a bail application. Therefore, in view of the applicant's criminal history 4 and suppression of material facts, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant regular bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Santabai, involved in Crime No. 319/2026, registered at Police Station - Basna, District - Mahasamund (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav