1 CGHC010310772026 2026:CGHC:40988 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7393 of 2026 1 - Abhay Dewar S/o Amit Dewar Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Tarra, Police Station Panduka, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh (P S Rajim Wrongly Mention In Impugned Order) 2 - Dixit Dewar S/o Bhupendra Dewar Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Tarra, Police Station Panduka, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh (P S Rajim Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Order) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S H O, Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Shri Ankush Soni, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY) Order on Board 21/09/2026 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.200/2026, registered at Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that police of Police Station Rajim District Gariyaband (C.G.), has seized 05.940 bulk liters of country made plain liquor wine from the joint possession of the present applicants. Thereafter, the aforesaid case was registered against the present applicants. Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.09.22 10:09:26 +0530 2 3. Learned Counsel for the applicants would argue that there are three criminal antecedents pending against applicant No.1, out of which, two cases are in Excise Act and one under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. He would further submit that one criminal case relating to Excise Act has already been disposed of whereas another case is still pending. It is also stated that criminal case registered under the provisions of IPC has also been disposed of. With regard to applicant No.2, he would further argue that only one case under the provisions of Excise Act is pending against him. It is also submitted that the applicants are in jail since 22.07.2026 and charge-sheet has already been filed and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application and submit that against both the applicants, there are criminal antecedents, and therefore, they are not entitled for grant of regular bail and the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having considered the quantum of liquor seized from the applicants, the period of detention and further only one case under the provisions of the Excise Act is pending against the each of the applicant moreover, the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and they are in jail since 22.07.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the applicants be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety each in the like 3 sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 applicants 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 them in accordance with law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Anjani