1 2026:CGHC:16195 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3128 of 2026 Birendra Singh S/o Shri Maheshwari Aged About 58 Years R/o Weekly Market, Near Kailash Nagar, Jamul District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jamul District Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.04.2026 1. This is the second 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. 666/2025 registered at Police Station- Jamul District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025 passed in MCRC No. 8572 of 2025 on the ground that applicant has 03 criminal antecedents under the Excise Act and a huge quantity of liquor was seized from RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 him. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the police of Police Station : Jamul District Durg (C.G.), received an information from the informant and on the basis of the said information conducted a raid and seized 101.88 bulk liters of country made liquor along with amount of Rs. 3150/- from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, Police has registered an offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act against the present applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application filed by the applicant, the first bail application was rejected by this Hon’ble Court on the ground that the applicant had three criminal antecedents of identical nature and a huge quantity of liquor was seized from him. She further submits that the out of 16 prosecution witnesses, only 08 witnesses have been examined and have not supported the case, and turned hostile. It is further submitted that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 07.08.2025, and the conclusion of the trial may take considerable time, and therefore, she prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that a quantity of 101.88 bulk litres of country-made liquor was seized from the possession of the present applicant without any valid licence, and no plausible explanation has been offered in this regard. He further submits that the present applicant has four previous criminal antecedents of a similar nature, bearing crime Nos. 482/2021, 226/2022, 237/2022 3 and 651/2025, pertaining to the years 2021, 2022,, 2022 2025 respectively, which are still pending, and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 8572 of 2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025 on merits and the new ground for filing of the second bail application is that the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.08.2025 and as per the status of the trial, out of 16 prosecution witnesses 08 have been examined before the trial Court and not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile, the same cannot be a ground for releasing the applicant on bail. Further the fact that learned State counsel has pointed out that the present applicant has four previous criminal antecedents of a similar nature, bearing crime Nos. 482/2021, 226/2022, 237/2022 and 651/2025, pertaining to the years 2021, 2022,, 2022 2025 respectively, which are still pending, which indicates that the applicant appears to be a habitual offender and has misused the liberty of bail. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any sufficient ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant - Birendra Singh, involved in Crime No. 666/2025 registered at Police Station- 4 Jamul District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan