1 CGHC010319502026 2026:CGHC:42522 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8079 of 2026 Subo Nandi S/o Dulal Nandi Aged About 37 Years R/o- Village- Chhote Bethiya, District- Kanker (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Chhote Bethiya, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY) Order on Board 30/09/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 10/2026 registered at Police Station Chhote Bethiya, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, 1915 against the present applicant. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.07.2026 upon secret information, the police of Police Station Chhote Bethiya has seized 52 liters of illicit liquor from the possession of the present applicant and other co-accused persons. Thereafter, the aforesaid case was Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.10.01 15:30:53 +0530 2 registered against the present applicant. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the said 52 liters illicit liquor was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant. It is further argued by him that in the present case, 4 cases of preventive measures were registered way back in the year 2016, one case under Gambling Act was registered in the year 2016, but he has no criminal antecedents under the Excise Act and under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years and the present applicant has been in jail since 23.07.2026 and further, conclusion of the trial is likely to take some considerable time. Therefore, he would pray for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application and submit that looking to the criminal antecedents of 4 cases of preventive measures, the applicant does not deserve grant of bail, therefore his 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 fact that 4 cases of preventive measures were registered way back in the year 2016 – 2020, one case under the Gambling Act registered in the year 2016, charge sheet has already been filed and there is no criminal history of similar nature and he is in jail since 23.07.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some more time, without making any observation on merits of the matter, this Court is of 3 the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. It is directed that applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court; (ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, & (iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Anjani