1 CGHC010336532026 2026:CGHC:38820 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8066 of 2026 Bhagwat Prasad Koshley S/o Ram Khilawan Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Parsada, Ward No. 05, P.S. And Tehsil Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Sargaon, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.09.2026 1. This is the Third Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 78/2026 registered at Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) & 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. The earlier bail applications of the applicant being MCRC Nos. 4953/2026 and 7011/2026 were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 09.07.2026 and 03.08.2026 respectively as the applicant has RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 total five more criminal antecedents out of which four cases are under the Excise Act, with liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.04.2026, upon receiving secret information regarding illegal transportation of liquor, the police intercepted the applicant and co-accused Pamlesh Bhaskar, who were allegedly travelling on a three-wheeler Honda Activa. During the course of search, approximately 5.400 bulk litres of country-made liquor were allegedly seized from the possession of the applicant, whereas approximately 6.300 bulk litres of country- made and foreign liquor were allegedly seized from the possession of co-accused Pamlesh Bhaskar. Accordingly, the applicant and the co-accused were apprehended and the offence was registered against them under the relevant provisions of law. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present application is the third bail application preferred by the applicant and his earlier bail applications were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 09.07.2026 and 03.08.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 4953 of 2026 and 7011 of 2026, respectively, on account of his criminal antecedents of similar nature, with liberty to approach the Court again and with a direction to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously. It is further submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is a permanently disabled person and has been in jail since 23.04.2026, and a copy of his permanent 3 disability certificate has been placed on record. It is further submitted that out of nine prosecution witnesses, only two witnesses have so far been examined, both of whom are seizure witnesses and have supported the prosecution case, and therefore the trial is likely to take considerable time. He further submits that the alleged offences are triable by the learned Magistrate and are not punishable with imprisonment for life or death. On these grounds, particularly the applicant’s physical disability, prolonged period of custody and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial, he prays that the applicant may kindly be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the present application is the third bail application preferred by the applicant and that his earlier bail applications were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 09.07.2026 and 03.08.2026 in MCRC Nos. 4953 of 2026 and 7011 of 2026, respectively, primarily on account of his criminal antecedents of similar nature. It is further submitted that even as on date, two criminal cases under the Excise Act are pending against the applicant, which demonstrate his repeated involvement in offences relating to illegal possession and transportation of liquor. He further submits that the applicant was allegedly found in possession of 5.400 bulk litres of country-made liquor, while 6.300 bulk litres of country-made and foreign liquor were seized from co- accused Pamlesh Bhaskar, who was apprehended along with the applicant. The alleged disability of the applicant also does not diminish the seriousness of the allegations or his previous 4 involvement in similar offences. Hence, considering the repeated involvement of the applicant in similar offences, pendency of two criminal cases under the Excise Act and the fact that this is his third bail application, he prays for rejection of the bail application. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the present application is the third bail application preferred by the applicant and his earlier bail applications were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 09.07.2026 and 03.08.2026 passed in MCRC Nos. 4953 of 2026 and 7011 of 2026, respectively, primarily on account of his criminal antecedents of similar nature. It further transpires that even after rejection of the earlier bail applications, two criminal cases under the Excise Act are still pending against the applicant, which prima facie indicates his repeated involvement in such offences. It is also not in dispute that out of nine prosecution witnesses, two seizure witnesses have already been examined and have supported the prosecution case. Though the applicant has pleaded that he is a permanently disabled person and has remained in jail since 23.04.2026 and that the alleged offences are triable by the Magistrate, considering the nature of the allegations, the recovery effected from his possession, his repeated involvement in similar offences, the pendency of two other criminal cases under the Excise Act and the fact that this is his third bail application after rejection of the earlier applications, this Court is not inclined to 5 exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. The grounds urged by the applicant do not constitute any substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the prayer for bail, 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. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 8. Accordingly, the third bail application of the applicant – Bhagwat Prasad Koshley, involved in Crime No. 78/2026 registered at Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) & 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 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 Rahul Dewangan