Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7205 (CHH)

RAMU VERMA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/2390/2026 · 2026-04-21

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:18468 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2390 of 2026 1 - Ramu Verma S/o Ramkumar Verma Aged About 30 Years R/o Nagpura, P.S. Ratanpur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Nilesh Kashyap S/o Hincharam Kashyap Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Gidhori, P.S. Ratanpur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Ratanpur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Shri Vikash Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, PL. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22/04/2026 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.47/2026 registered at Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur C.G. for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of Chhattisgarh GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2026.04.23 20:35:16 +0530 2 Excise Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.01.2026 from the applicants/accused upon searching the white bag, a white plastic jerrycan with a capacity of 10 liters was found, which was completely filled with 10 liters of raw mahua liquor made in a hand-made furnace, and 32 bottles of country liquor with a capacity of 180 ml each. When asked to produce documents regarding the above seized liquor worth Rs. 4,560/-, which has been seized from the applicants/accused they failed to produce the same and finding the applicants/accused involved in the said crime, they were arrested on 21.01.2026. Hence this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and falsely implicated in the instant case. He would submit that the prosecution has not seized liquor from the possession of applicants. He would further submit that the applicants are bread earning members and their pretrial long detention will adversely affect their family members to run livelihood. He would submit that the applicants are in jail since 21/01/2026 and conclusion of trial will take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application. She would submit that applicant No.1 has one criminal antecedent of the year 2022 under the Excise Act in which permanent warrant has been issued against him and applicant No.2 has two criminal antecedents under the IPC, out of which, one case is disposed of and in the other case of the year 2022, permanent warrant has been issued against him also. She would further submit that there is every likelihood 3 that the applicants would abscond, if they are released on bail, therefore they are not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record, nature of allegation against the applicants, considering the fact that both the applicants have criminal antecedents, applicant No.1 is involved in a prior case under the Excise Act wherein a permanent warrant of arrest has been issued against him, and applicant No.2 is also having two criminal antecedents, out of which in one case a permanent warrant of arrest has been issued against him also, as permanent warrant of arrest has been issued against both of them, there is every likelihood that the applicants would abscond, if they are released on bail, therefore this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicants. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicants Ramu Verma & Nilesh Kashyap involved in Crime No.47/2026 registered at Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur C.G. for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of Chhattisgarh Excise Act is rejected. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE gouri