1 2026:CGHC:16966 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1789 of 2026 Sumeet Manhare S/o Shri Ramkumar Manhare Aged About 25 Years R/o Village - Sandi (Mudpar), Police Station- Palari, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer of Police Station- Palari, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Khilendra Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.04.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 53/2026, registered at Police Station Palari, District – Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 02.02.2026, acting on secret information received from an informant, the police of Police Station Palari seized 7.20 bulk litres of country-made masala liquor from the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.04.15 10:54:36 +0530 2 possession of the co-accused, Ganeshuram Gaikwad, at village Mudpar. In connection with the said incident, a case was registered against the co-accused under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act. During the course of investigation, the co-accused, Ganeshuram Gaikwad, was interrogated on the spot regarding the seized liquor, and his memorandum statement was recorded, wherein it was alleged that the seized liquor had been supplied to him for sale by the present applicant, Sumeet Manhare. On the basis of the said memorandum statement, the present applicant was taken into custody and interrogated, and an amount alleged to be proceeds of the sale of liquor was seized from him. Upon finding his alleged involvement in the offence, a case was registered against the applicant under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, and the matter was taken up for investigation. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the present applicant has two criminal antecedents - one case under the Excise Act, which is pending trial, and another case under the IPC, which has already been disposed of on the basis of compromise. An explanation in this regard has already been provided in paragraph No. 4(a) of the present bail application. He further submits that under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, the minimum punishment is one year and the maximum punishment is three years, and the applicant has been in jail since 02.02.2026. The trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for the grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that, looking to the criminal antecedents of the applicant under the Excise Act, the applicant appears to be a habitual 3 offender. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of 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, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant has 02 criminal antecedents, 01 case under the Excise Act, which is pending trial, and another case under the IPC, which has already been disposed of on the basis of compromise. An explanation in this regard has already been provided in paragraph No. 4(a) of the present bail application and also considering the fact that the charge- sheet has been filed and the applicant has been in jail since 02.02.2026 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Let applicant, Sumeet Manhare, involved in Crime No. 53/2026, registered at Police Station Palari, District – Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two 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 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 4 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 Abhishek