Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:11810 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1928 of 2025 Radheshyam Tandon S/o Subedas Tandon Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Dongariya, Police Station Hathband, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Name Of Applicant And District Is Wrongly Mentioned As In The Cause Title Of The Impugned Order) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Police Station Hathband, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Wrongly Mentioned As District Bhatapara In The Cause Title Of The Impugned Order) ... Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
Baratu Yadav, has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 1321/2025, vide order dated 17.02.2025 and so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, the applicant has three criminal antecedents under the Excise Act of the year 2008, 2009 and 2021 which has been clearly explained in the bail application and in the present case, charge-sheet has filed before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since 20.12.2024 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that in the present case, 3 charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has three criminal antecedents, which has been explained by the counsel for the applicant in his bail application. She further submits that from the possession of the co-accused 4733 bulk liters of liquor was seized and on the basis of memorandum statement of the co-accused, the present applicant has been made accused and as such he is a habitual offender therefore, he is not entitled for 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 in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has three criminal antecedents, which has been explained by the counsel for the applicant in the bail application and further the quantity of liquor seized from the possession of the co-accused i.e. 4733 bulk liters of liquor and on the basis of memorandum statement of the co- accused, the present applicant has been made accused and also considering the fact that the the co-accused namely Baratu Yadav has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 1321/2025 vide order dated 17.02.2025 and the case of the applicant is identical to that of the co-accused and he is in jail since 20.12.2024 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, Radheshyam Tandon, involved in Crime No. 4 193/2024, registered at Police Station : Hathband, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2), 59(a), 36 of the C.G. Excise Act, 1915 and Section 111 of Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023, 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 sufÏcient 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, 5 (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 sufÏcient 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. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Kunal Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice
Arguments
: Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10.03.2025 Order on Board 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. 193/2024, registered at Police Station : Hathband, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2), 59(a), 36 of the C.G. Excise Act, 1915 and Section 111 of Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Police of Police 2 Station Hathband, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), received an information from the informant and on the basis of the said information conducted raid and have seized 4788 bulk liters of liquor from the possession of other co-accused persons and on the basis of memorandum statement of the co-accused, the present applicant has been made accused in the instant crime thereafter, the aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicant along with co-accused. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the said liquor was not seized from the possession of the applicant. It is further argued by him that under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years. He further submits that in the present case, co-accused namely