1 CGHC010291212026 2026:CGHC:38417 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7101 of 2026 Arvind Rajput S/o Tarun Singh Rajput Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No.11 Gundardehi Police Station - Gunderdehi District- Balod (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- S H O Police Station Gunderdehi District- Balod (C.G.) (Details Of Respondent Properly Not Mentioned In Impugned Order Sheet ) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.08.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 192/2026 registered at Police Station - Gunderdehi District - Balod (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.09.01 11:07:30 +0530 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.06.2026, the police received secret information that the present applicant was allegedly selling illicit liquor near Gada Para, in the vicinity of Natwar Gada's house. Acting upon the said information, the police conducted a raid at the spot, during which the present applicant was apprehended. Upon search, 34 bottles/pouches of 180 ml each, total 6.120 bulk litres of country-made liquor, were allegedly recovered from the possession of the present applicant. As the applicant could not furnish any satisfactory explanation regarding possession of the said liquor, the police seized the same and registered the aforesaid offence against him 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous conviction and that nothing has been seized from his possession; moreover, the applicant was not apprehended from the alleged place of occurrence. Learned counsel submits that the alleged offence is triable by the Magistrate and that the applicant is the sole bread-earner of his family. It is further submitted that there is no eye-witness to the alleged incident and that the applicant has been falsely implicated merely on the basis of suspicion and apprehension. Learned counsel further submits that the previous criminal case relied upon by the prosecution has already been disposed of and the applicant has been acquitted by the competent Trial Court. It is also submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 18.06.2026, undertakes to appear before the Trial Court on each and every date of hearing, and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Hence, the applicant deserves to be released on 3 regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, and further taking into account the period of detention, as the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 18.06.2026, and the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. 7. Let the Applicant – Arvind Rajput, involved in Crime No. 192/2026 registered at Police Station - Gunderdehi District- Balod (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act., be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local 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 4 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against his 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. 8. 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 Vaibhav