1 CGHC010355332026 2026:CGHC:40354 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8587 of 2026 Bharat Lal Gangber S/o Anjore, Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o Nipani. P. S. And District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Gurur District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Ms. Lata Naik, holding the brief of Mr. Tarun Naik, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge Order on Board 16.09.2026 1. This is the Second Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 72/2026 registered at Police Station Gurur, District Balod (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915. 2. Earlier the first bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 3765/2026 has already been rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 this Court vide order dated 07.07.2026, on the ground of criminal antecedents of the applicant. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the date of incident, the police received secret information through an informant regarding illegal possession and sale of country-made liquor by an unknown person in a scooter. Acting upon the said information, the police conducted patrolling and checking and found 6.48 bulk litres of country-made liquor kept at an open place near the place of incident. The applicant was apprehended in connection with the said recovery, however, he failed to produce any document or authority for lawful possession of the seized liquor. Accordingly, the aforesaid offence was registered against the applicant and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that no article was seized from his possession. She would further submits that the alleged illicit liquor was seized from an open place and the applicant has no connection with the said liquor. She also submits that the applicant is an innocent person and the matter was not properly investigated by the police and moreover, the applicant is suffering from heart ailment and his treatment is going on regularly. The applicant is in jail since 07.04.2026. She would further further submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC No. 3765/2026 vide order dated 07.04.2026, primarily on the ground of his criminal 3 antecedents, as three criminal cases under the Excise Act were registered against him. Therefore, she prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the first bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC No. 3765/2026 vide order dated 07.04.2026 on the ground that the applicant has three criminal antecedents under the Excise Act and all the said cases are still pending. He further submits that there is no subsequent change in the circumstances warranting reconsideration of the prayer for bail. Therefore, he prays for rejection of the present bail application. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegation, the fact that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC No. 3765/2026 vide order dated 07.04.2026, particularly taking into consideration his criminal antecedents and further considering that three criminal cases registered against the applicant under the Excise Act are still pending, coupled with the fact that no substantial change in the circumstances has been brought on record after rejection of the earlier bail application, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out for interference with the earlier order. Accordingly, no interference is called for in the present Second Bail Application. 4 8. Accordingly, the Second bail application of applicant – Bharat Lal Gangber, involved in Crime No. 72/2026 registered at Police Station Gurur, District Balod (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, is rejected. 9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Kunal