1 CGHC010346802026 2026:CGHC:41252 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8342 of 2026  Ganpat Baghel S/o Budhram Baghel Aged About 28 Years Caste - Satnami, R/o Village - Karhi, Police Station - Birra, Tahsil - Hasaud, District - Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Excise Circle, Jaijaipur, District Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ravi Banjare, Advocate For Non-applicant : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 22.09.2026 1) The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.91/2026, registered by Excise Circle Jaijaipur, District Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act. 2) The prosecution story in brief, is that on 05.07.2026, Excise Sub- 2 Inspector of Excise Circle Jaijaipur received secret information from the informant and on the basis of said information, a raid was conducted wherein 27.6 litre of mahua was recovered from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, the crime has been registered against the applicant. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that applicant has 03 criminal antecedents of similar nature and all such antecedents have been duly explained in Part-D (Criminal Antecedents) of the present bail application. He also submits that charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 05.07.2026 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and 27.6 litre of Mahua was seized from the possession of present applicant. She further submits that the applicant has three criminal antecedents of similar nature which makes him a habitual offender. Hence, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6) Considering the fact that the applicant has three criminal antecedent under the Excise Act and the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court in the present case and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. 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, this Court is of the opinion that is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7) Accordingly, the bail application of applicant is rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.09.23 17:40:13 +0530