1 2026:CGHC:18188 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2878 of 2026 1 - Kamlesh Kumar Dadsena S/o Shri Deenaram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Rajasewaiya Khurd, Police Station Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Sharad Tiwari S/o Vinod Tiwari, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Rajasewaiya Khurd, Police Station Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Patewa, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.04.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 05/2026 registered at Police Station - Patewa, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.04.22 10:59:55 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.01.2026, acting on secret information, police of Police Station Patewa has seized 69.120 bulk litres of illicit country made liquor from the possession of the applicants. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits The applicants have been roped in due to political vendetta at the instance of a motivated police agency. They are respectable persons of their locality and have been made scapegoats by the prosecution, whereas the trial is likely to take a considerable period of time. The allegations levelled against the applicants are false, baseless, and unreliable, and from the facts and circumstances of the case, no offence is made out against them. The applicants are the sole breadwinners of their respective families, and due to the present case, their families are suffering irreparable hardship. The applicants have no previous criminal antecedents, and mere suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. They are permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title and there is no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses. The applicants are ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and undertake to abide by all terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/non- applicant opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court in the present case. He further submits that Applicant No. 1, namely Kamlesh Kumar, has nine criminal antecedents, out of which four cases are registered under the Excise Act, whereas Applicant No. 2, namely Sharad Tiwari, has no criminal 3 antecedents, therefore, the applicants are not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, that there is 09 criminal antecedent registered against the applicant No. 1, namely, Kamlesh Kumar and he is a habitual offender, further he has misused the bail granted to him earlier and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant No. 1 - Kamlesh Kumar, involved in Crime Crime No. 05/2026 registered at Police Station - Patewa, District - Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) C.G. Excise Act, is rejected. 8. Whereas applicant No. 2, namely Sharad Tiwari, has no criminal antecedent and the contraband article, i.e., country-made plain liquor, seized is much below the commercial quantity, and the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the applicant has been in jail since 07.01.2026, and considering that the conclusion of the trial may take considerable time, this Court is of the view that Applicant No. 2, namely Sharad Tiwari, is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 9. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant No. 2 - Sharad Tiwari involved in involved in Crime No. 05/2026 registered at Police Station - 4 Patewa, District - Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) C.G. Excise Act, be released on bail on him furnishing a 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 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. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance within one week from today. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav