Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 5 2025:CGHC:43676 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5702 of 2025 Tuntun Prasad Gupta S/o Tbaliram Prasad Gupta Aged About 38 Years R/o N.M.D.C. Madin Chowk Kumarpara, Police Station Bodhghat District Bastar C.G. ... Applicant VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.08.29 12:00:46 +0530 versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Staton House Officer, Police Station Bhanpuri, District Baster (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
persons have been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 6410 of 2025 vide order dated 13.08.2025, the trial will take considerable time, he has no motive or intention to commit the alleged offence, and being a permanent resident of the given address, there is no possibility of absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence, and he is ready to furnish adequate security and abide by any conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court in the present case. He further submitted that 136.260 bulk liters of country-made liquor was recovered from the possession of the applicant therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused 4 / 5 the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the present applicant, as well as the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and that in this very case the other co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 6410 of 2025 vide order dated 13.08.2025, and also considering that the applicant has been in jail since 24.03.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 8. Let the applicant – Tuntun Prasad Gupta, involved in Crime No. 38/2025 registered at Police Station - Bhanpuri, District - Baster (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 34(2) & 41(1) of the Excise Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 5 / 5 (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 sufficient 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. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice 9. - vaibhav
Arguments
: Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.08.2025 1. 2. In compliance of the order dated 08.08.2025, the counsel for the applicant has filed the correct certified copy of the bail rejection order, and the same has been annexed with the bail application along with the covering memo. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 38/2025 registered at Police Station - Bhanpuri, District - Baster 2 / 5 (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 34(2) & 41(1) of the Excise Act. 3. As per the prosecution story, illicit liquor was being transported in a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. CG 17 LB 4518, which was later found dumped in agricultural land, where Manikpuri (son of Damru Manikpuri) was safeguarding the liquor, while co-accused Jharendra Manikpuri and Kamal Manikpuri had taken the vehicle in search of buyers; on this basis the offence was registered against Dependra Mourya, Jharendra Manikpuri and Kamal Manikpuri, who were arrested, and during investigation Jharendra Manikpuri in his memorandum admitted to selling liquor for the last three years and disclosed that the seized liquor had been purchased from Nandkishor Verma @ Nitu, who was later arrested and in his statement revealed that he had been procuring illicit liquor from Dashrath Meeda of Indore, Madhya Pradesh, and that the transportation of MP Brand Whisky in a Maharashtra-passing vehicle eventually reached the co- accused; during investigation, it also surfaced that some amount was deposited from the applicant’s Manikpuri Aadhaar Centre into the account of Devendra, an associate of Dashrath Meeda, and apart from this transaction no other direct role of the applicant was found, yet after due investigation the police filed charge sheet against five accused persons namely Jitendra Mourya, Jharendra Manikpuri, Nandkishor @ Nitu Verma, Dashrath Meeda and the present applicant. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity with 3 / 5 Dashrath Meeda of Indore, Madhya Pradesh, as no country-made liquor was ever seized from his exclusive possession but rather from an open place near his residence; the applicant has no connection or acquaintance with the co-accused persons who were caught red- handed and from whose possession the liquor was recovered, and there is no evidence collected in the charge sheet to substantiate his involvement, except for the mere statement of a co-accused, which as per settled law cannot be the sole basis to drag an innocent person into a false case; the applicant is the sole earning member of his family, has been in jail since 24.03.2025, the charge sheet has already been filed. He further submits that in this case other co-accused