Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:32079 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5375 of 2025 Gopal Verma S/o Ramu Verma Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Suma, P S Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. (Wrongly AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Written In The Impugned Order As District Balodabazar) versus ... Applicant(s) State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O, P S Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Ankur Diwan alongwith Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Advocates. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10/07/2025 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. 209/2025 registered at Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) for the 2 offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that it is alleged that on 28.03.2025, based on information received from a police informer, the police conducted a raid at the residence of co-accused Ravishankar Devdas, where 6.3 bulk liters of illicit country-made liquor were seized. As Ravishankar failed to produce documents supporting the lawful possession of the liquor, an FIR was registered under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act at PS Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. Subsequently, Sections 111 and 95 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 78 of the Juvenile Justice Act were added. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of the main accused, Ravishankar Devdas, the present applicant was arrested by the police on 28.06.2025, in connection with Crime No. 209/2025, for the alleged offenses under Sections 111, 95 BNS, 78 of the JJ Act, and Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has 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 further submits that under Section 34(2) of the Chattisgarh Excise Act, the minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years. He also submits that only on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused, present applicant has been made an accused in the case, further there is no 3 any seizure of intoxicating substance has been made from the present applicant as the same was made from the co-accused, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has 3 criminal antecedents, out of which, one is under the Excise Act was disposed of by paying fine amount, one case is under the IPC was compromised between the parties and one case is under the IPC was settled in Lok Adalat. He later submits that the bail application of co-accused has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.06.2025 in MCRC No.4359/2025. The applicant is in jail since 28.06.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further submits that 6.3 bulk liters of illicit country-made liquor were seized from the possession of co-accused Ravishankar Devdas and he failed to produce documents supporting the lawful possession of the liquor, an FIR was registered against him and in pursuant to whose memorandum statement the name of present applicant has come into light. He also submits that the nature of allegation is grave, the applicant not only violated excise laws, but also exploited children for illegal activities, attracting provisions of Section 78 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Further, the act of endangering public health by circulation of illicit liquor and involving minors in the offence makes the applicant undeserving of any discretionary relief, so far 4 as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has 3 criminal antecedents, further the bail application of co- accused, namely, Ravishankar Devdas, has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.06.2025 in MCRC No.4359/2025, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, nature & gravity of the offence, material available in the case dairy, it prima facie appears that 6.3 bulk liters of illicit country-made liquor were seized from the possession of co-accused Ravishankar Devdas and he failed to produce documents supporting the lawful possession of the liquor, an FIR was registered against him and in pursuant to whose memorandum statement, the name of present applicant has come into light, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, the applicant has three criminal antecedents, though the
Decision
said three criminal antecedents are disposed of, but the allegations pertain to the illegal trade of intoxicants, in which minors were used a circumstance that reflects a serious threat to societal order and child welfare, also considering the the fact that the bail application of co-accused, namely, Ravishankar Devdas, has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.06.2025 in MCRC No.4359/2025, as such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 5 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Gopal Verma, involved in Crime No. 209/2025 registered at Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil