1 2026:CGHC:7670 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No.1498 of 2026 Brijlal Baiga S/o Late Aama Baiga Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Tavadabra, Police Station - Gaurela, Distt.- Gaurela-Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- SHO, Police Station- Excise Circle Pendra, Distt.- Gaurela-Pendra-Marvahi (C.G.) ... Non-applicant _____________________________________________________ For Applicant :Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State :Mr. Sourabh Sahu, PL. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.02.2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this 1st Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.02.12 10:42:27 +0530 2 connection with Crime No.71/2025 registered at Police Station – Excise Circle Pendra, District Gaurela-Pendra- Marvahi (C.G.), for the offence under Sections 34(1)(a), 36, 34(2) and 59(A) of Excise Act. 2. As per the prosecution story, on 10.12.2025, during patrolling at village Tawanda Bara, Thadpathra, on the basis of oral information regarding illegal sale of liquor and due to paucity of time, the residential house of the accused Brijlal Baiga, was searched in accordance with law without obtaining a search warrant. During the search, a total of nine paper cartons bearing the label “Goa Whisky” were recovered, each carton containing fifty glass quarter bottles (capacity 180 ml) filled with foreign liquor, totaling 450 quarter bottles. Upon on- spot examination and testing, the liquid was found to be foreign liquor “Goa Whisky” valid for sale only within the State of Madhya Pradesh. The total seized liquor measured 81 bulk litres, which was duly sealed and taken into custody and a seizure memo and panchnama were prepared. The entire search and seizure proceedings were audio-video recorded through a mobile device. On this basis of the aforesaid allegation, offence as mentioned above, has been registered against the present Applicant. Hence this application. 3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant 3 is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the Applicant was not in conscious possession of the alleged seized liquor, he was not the sole inmate of the house from where the liquor is alleged to have been recovered and therefore, exclusive possession cannot be attributed to him. It is also argued that no incriminating article has been seized from the personal possession of the Applicant and the articles allegedly seized are of common nature and mere recovery of such commonly available articles is insufficient to connect him with the alleged offence. He further submits that the Applicant is in judicial custody since 10.12.2025; the charge-sheet has already been filed, and conclusion of trial is likely to take quite some time, therefore, he may be granted bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there are no previous criminal antecedents against the Applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the submissions advanced on behalf of the Applicant that he was not in conscious and exclusive possession of the seized liquor, he was not the sole inmate of 4 the house from where the alleged recovery has been effected and that no specific incriminating article has been seized from his personal possession, this Court is of the view that the involvement of the Applicant is a matter to be adjudicated during trial. It is further taken into consideration that the Applicant is in judicial custody since 10.12.2025, the charge- sheet has already been filed, no further custodial interrogation appears to be necessary, also taking into consideration that there are no previous criminal antecedents against him and conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the Applicant. Accordingly, the present MCRC is allowed. 7. Let applicant- Brijlal Baiga involved in Crime No.71/2025 registered at Police Station – Excise Circle Pendra, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marvahi (C.G.), for the offence under Sections 34(1)(a), 36, 34(2) and 59(A) of 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 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 5 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient 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 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 Priya