2026:CGHC:17238 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2963 of 2026 Raju Panika S/o Jotram Aged About 35 Years R/o Sadak Datai Haldibadi, Thana And Tehsil- Chirmiri, Distt.- M.C.B. (C.G.) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Police Station- Chirmiri, Distt.- M.C.B. (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.04.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 80/2026, registered at Police Station - Chirmiri, District.- M.C.B. (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that on 12.02.2026, that upon receiving an information by the prosecution, On searching the VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.04.16 12:04:24 +0530 applicant/accused along with his friend Ramesh (co accused) who ran away, 35 pieces of Mahua liquor made from hand-made furnace kept in a yellow colour plastic bag in white transparent foil, each foil containing 01-01 litre, totaling 35 litres of Mahua liquor made from hand-made furnace were seized. Regarding keeping the above quantity of Mahua liquor made from hand-made furnace, when notice was given to the applicant/accused under section 94 of IPC, he did not produce any valid document. After which, Police Station Chirmiri registered a case under section 34 (2) Chhattisgarh under crime number-80/2026 of Chirmiri police station. A case has been registered under the Excise Act and the charge sheet has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicnat has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted applicant has been arrested solely to harass and humiliate him. It is further submitted that the prosecution agency, taking advantage of the fact that the applicant allegedly has three previous criminal antecedents, subjected him to harassment and exerted pressure upon him to provide money, and upon his refusal to comply with such illegal demands, he has been falsely implicated in the present offence. The charge sheet has already been filed, and there is no likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial. The applicant is the sole breadwinner of his family, and due to his continued detention, there is no one to take care of his dependents. It is further submitted that the applicant has been acquitted in Crime No. 102/2021 vide order dated 23.08.2025, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure A/3. The alleged offence is not grave in nature, and the circumstances, including the quantity involved, clearly indicate that a false and frivolous case has been registered against the applicant; thus, his further detention would be unjustified. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. He is ready to furnish adequate surety and undertakes to abide by all the directions and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposed the bail application and submitted that, in the present case, the charge sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. It is further submitted that the applicant has criminal antecedents, as Crime No. 373/2025 under Section 34(1)(a) of the C.G. Excise Act and Crime No. 23/2022 under Section 36C of the Excise Act are still pending before the trial Court. Learned State Counsel contends that the pendency of the aforesaid cases indicates that the applicant is a habitual offender and, therefore, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also taking into account the fact that two cases are pending against the applicant under the Excise Act, which clearly indicates that the applicant is a habitual offender, and further, in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused on the ground of having previous criminal antecedents, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not warrant the grant of regular bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Raju Panika, involved in Crime No. 80/2026, registered at Police Station - Chirmiri, District.- M.C.B. (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav