1 2026:CGHC:16153 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 790 of 2026 Tajeshwar Tandon S/o Santosh Tandon Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Suarmal, Police Station Komakhan, District- Mahasamund, C.G. (District Name Wrongly Written As District- Raipur, C.G. In The Impugned Order Dated 05-01-2026) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer-In-Charge Of Police Station- Komakhan, District - Mahasamund, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. R.K. Verma Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.04.2026 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. 171/2025, registered at Police Station Komakhan, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.12.2025 Police VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.04.10 16:12:06 +0530 2 Station- Komakhan received secret information that a person was illegally selling country-made Mahua liquor near an Mango (Aam) tree of the Suarmal Pahad; acting on the said information, the police officers along with witnesses reached the spot, apprehended the applicant, and upon search allegedly recovered one yellow plastic container containing 15 litres and one yellow plastic jerrycan containing 15 litres of country-made hand-made Mahua liquor, totaling 30 litres, from his possession; as the applicant allegedly failed to produce any valid license or permit. Therefore, the Crime No. 171/2025 was registered against him under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, he was arrested on 28.12.2025 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. 3. The applicant respectfully submits that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no independent eyewitness to support the prosecution story. It is further submitted that the alleged seizure was made from a secluded place and the entire prosecution case is based mainly upon police witnesses, therefore, independent corroboration is weak and doubtful. The alleged offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 is triable by a Magistrate of First Class and the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time; therefore, continued detention of the applicant would amount to pre-trial punishment. There is no material available on record to show the involvement of the present applicant in the alleged offence. The applicant is in custody since 28.12.2025 and if he is kept in jail for a longer period, his family would suffer adversely for their livelihood and bread and butter. The applicant is a permanent 3 resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, possesses movable and immovable property and there is no likelihood of his absconding. The applicant is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the terms and conditions which may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence levelled against the present applicant, as well as the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 28.12.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let applicant, Tajeshwar Tandon, involved in Crime No. 171/2025, registered at Police Station Komakhan, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial 4 court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav