1 CGHC010303182026 2026:CGHC:42071 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7184 of 2026 1 - Amit Banjare S/o Naindas Banjare Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Girhola, Police Station Nandini Nagar, District- Durg, C.G. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Nandini Nagar, District- Durg, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Non-applicant /State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28/09/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.09.29 10:52:26 +0530 2 Crime No. 237/2026 registered at Police Station Nandini Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter, “the Excise Act”). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that as per the information received from an informer, police conducted a raid and seized 17.100 bulk liters of country made liquor from the possession of the applicant and thereafter, registered the aforesaid offence against the present applicant. 3. Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, would submit that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case and he is innocent. He would further submit that the applicant has only one criminal antecedent, pertaining to the year 2019, registered for offence punishable under POCSO Act and the applicant has been acquitted therein. He would further contend that the applicant is in jail since 23/07/2026, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, learned counsel for the non-applicant/State, would oppose the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. She would further submit that 17.100 bulk liters of country made liquor was seized from the possession of the present 3 applicant, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that the 17.100 bulk litres of country made liquor has been seized from the possession of the applicant and though there is one criminal antecedent of the applicant for commission of offence punishable under POCSO Act, but the applicant has already been acquitted therein and lastly considering that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant is in jail since 23/07/2026, and conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 7. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail, on 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 4 to fair and expeditious trial, and (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. 8. The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits. Sd/- SSd/-- d/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Harneet