Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:14376 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2331 of 2025 Ugrasen Navrange S/o Ghanshyam Navrange Aged About 44 Years R/o Sundari (S), Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN versus ... Applicant(s) State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Hathband, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Lata Nayak, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25/03/2025 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 applicant who 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 Sections 34(2), 59(A) and 36 of the C.G. Excise Act and Section 111 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that as per secret information received from the informant, the Police of Police Station Hathband, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara seized 4788 bulk liters of illicit liquor from the possession of applicant, thereafter, aforesaid offences have been registered against the applicant and subsequently he has been arrested. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and 4788 bulk liters of illicit liquor was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant. He further submits that under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years. He also submits that one of the co- accused, namely, Sanjay Dhritlahare has already been granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 06.03.2025 in SLP(Crl) No(s).3155/2025 and two of the identically situated co-accused persons, namely, Sarju Yadu and Lakshminath Yadu have already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 03.01.2025 in MCRC No.7924/2024, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, the applicant has three criminal antecedents, out of which, in one case applicant has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him, copy of which is annexed as Annexure A-2, in one case, applicant has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2025, copy of which is annexed as Annexure A-3 and one case, which is of the year 2022 under the Excise Act is pending, the applicant is in jail since 06.12.2024 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite 3 long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. Learned counsel 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 and the applicant has three criminal antecedents, out of which, one case is under the IPC and two cases are under the Excise Act. She further submits that 4788 bulk liters of illicit liquor was recovered from the joint possession of applicant and co-accused persons, therefore, applicant is not entitled for grant of 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, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the applicant has three criminal antecedents, out of which, in one case applicant has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him, copy of which is annexed as Annexure A-2, in one case, applicant has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2025, copy of which is annexed as Annexure A-3 and besides these cases, the applicant has only one case pending against him, which is of the year 2022 under the Excise Act, also considering the fact that one of the co-accused persons, namely, Sanjay Dhritlahare has already been granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 06.03.2025 in SLP(Crl) No(s).3155/2025 and two of the identically situated co-accused persons, namely, Sarju Yadu and Lakshminath Yadu have been 4 granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 03.01.2025 in MCRC No.7924/2024, the applicant is in jail since 06.12.2024 and the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, further the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the applicant - Ugrasen Navrange, involved in Crime No. 193/2024 registered at Police Station Hathband, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2), 59(A) and 36 of the C.G. Excise Act and Section 111 of BNS, 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. (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 5 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. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil