1 CGHC010369392026 2026:CGHC:41493 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8964 of 2026 1 - Umesh Yadav S/o Shri Upakar Yadav Aged About 31 Years R/o Boriyakala Police Station Mujgahan, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Mujgahan, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr.Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. AG Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 24.09.2026 1) This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant arrested in connection with Crime No. 183/2026, registered at Police Station Mujgahan, Raipur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of CG Excise Act. 2) The prosecution story in brief, is that, as per the secret information received from the informant, on the basis of such information, the REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH DN: cn=REKHA SINGH, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.09.24 16:32:26 +0530 2 police officials conducted raid and have seized 5.400 bulk liter of country made 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 has falsely been implicated in the present case and no seizure has been made from his exclusive possession. He further submits that the applicant has three criminal antecedents, out of which two cases are under the Excise Act and are still pending. He also submits that, under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, the minimum punishment is one year and the maximum punishment is three years. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 05.08.2026 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the present applicant. 4) On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant opposes the bail application and submits that, in the present case, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. He submits that the present applicant has three criminal antecedents, out of which two cases are under the Excise Act, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender. As such, he is not entitled to the grant of bail. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further considering the fact that the applicant has three criminal antecedents, out of which two cases are under the Excise Act, which indicates his involvement in repeated offences, and also in view of the judgment 3 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein, taking into consideration his previous criminal antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha