Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2025:CGHC:17466 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2087 of 2025 1 - Kedar Loniya S/o Late Ramsnehi Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kholipara Ghutaku P.S. Koni District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Dhandev Loniya S/o Late Ramsnehi Loniya Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Kholipara Ghutaku P.S. Koni District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Koni District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus ... Respondent/State For Applicants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rajendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, PL Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 80/2025 registered at Police Station- Koni, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Police of Police Station- Koni, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), received a secret information from the informant 2 and on the basis of said information the Police conducted raid and seized 50 bulk liters Mahua liquor from the possession of the present applicants. Thereafter, the offence has been registered against the present applicants. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. The mandatory provisions with regard to search and seizure have not been followed by the Police in this case. He also submits that under Section 34(2) of the Chattisgarh Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant No. 1 has 5 criminal antecedents and out of which under the Excise Act, two are pending of the year 2020, whereas applicant No. 2 has no criminal antecedents. He also submits that the applicants are in jail since 09.02.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for releasing the applicants on regular bail. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. She further submits that the applicant No. 1 is having 5 criminal antecedents under the Excise Act and out which two cases are pending of the year 2020, whereas the applicant No. 2 has no criminal antecedents and the quantity of liquor seized i.e. 50 bulk liters of Mahua liquor from the applicants, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and in the present case the applicant No. 1 is having five criminal antecedents under the Excise Act, out of which two are 3 pending of the year 2020, which shows, he is a habitual offender and that the quantity of liquor seized is 50 bulk liters of Mahua liquor 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 No. 1 on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Kedar Loniya, filed under Section 483 of BNSS, involved in Crime No. 80/2025 registered at Police Station- Koni, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, is rejected. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant No. 2 and the fact that the applicant No. 2 has no criminal antecedents, further the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant No. 2 is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 9. Let the applicant No.2 -Dhandev Loniya, involved in Crime No. 80/2025 registered at Police of Police Station – Koni, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, 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 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. 4 (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 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. 10. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously from the receipt of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 11. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/-Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice AMIT PATEL