1 2026:CGHC:18469 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2341 of 2026 Jageshwar Dansena S/o Shri Sukhram Dansena Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Chhote Gumda, Thana And Tehsil Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Sakshi Singh Thakur, Advocate For Non-applicant : Ms. Monika Singh Thakur, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.04.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.70/2026, registered at Police Station: Gharghoda, District-Raigarh, Chhattisgarh for the ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.04.23 15:43:31 +0530 2 offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh, Excise Act,2015. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.02.2026, the police of Police Station Gharghoda received secret information from an informant that Jageshwar Dansena, resident of village Chhote Gumda, had stored a substantial quantity of illegal Mahua liquor in a plastic jerrycan in the courtyard of his house and was attempting to sell the same. Acting upon the said information, a raid was conducted, during which 52 litres of Mahua liquor was allegedly recovered and seized from the said premises. The applicant was arrested in connection with the said recovery, and accordingly, an FIR was registered against him. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, as he has no nexus whatsoever with the alleged offence. It is contended that no incriminating material has been recovered from the possession or exclusive control of the applicant, and he has been implicated merely on the basis that the alleged recovery was effected near his house. It is further submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 27.02.2026 and 3 the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. The applicant is the sole bread earner of his family, and his continued detention would cause grave hardship to his dependents. The applicant is a permanent resident with no likelihood of absconding and undertakes to abide by all conditions imposed by this Court, hence, he is entitled to be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant is involved in a serious offence under the Excise Act, wherein 52 litres of illegal Mahua liquor has been recovered pursuant to a raid conducted on the basis of credible secret information. It is contended that the recovery from the courtyard of the applicant’s house prima facie establishes his involvement at this stage, and the plea of false implication is a matter for trial. It is further submitted that, considering the gravity of the offence and material available on record, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the alleged recovery of 52 litres of Mahua liquor is stated to have been made from the courtyard near the applicant’s house and not from his exclusive possession, and further taking into account that the applicant is in judicial custody since 27.02.2026 and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter primarily requires appreciation of evidence during trial. Further, there is no material on record indicating any likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence. In such circumstances, further custodial detention of the applicant is not warranted. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the bail application. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Let applicant, Jageshwar Dansena involved in Crime No.70/2026, registered at Police Station: Gharghoda, District-Raigarh, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh, Excise Act,2015, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following 5 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 them 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Section 209 of 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, 6 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Arpan