Indore (M.P.) v. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:40848 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN MCRC No. 6410 of 2025 1 - Jharendra Manikpuri S/o Shri Damru Manikpuri Aged About 32 Years Caste Panka R/o Village Baniyagaon, Khaspara, Thana Bhanpuri, District - Bastar Place Jagdalpur (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
prima facie appears that the seizure of 136 bulk liters of liquor has been made from the possession of the co-accused, Dipendra Maurya and the involvement of present applicants have come into light from the memorandum statement of the said co-accused, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, applicant No.1 has one criminal antecedent, in which, he has already been acquitted and applicant No.2 has one criminal antecedent under the Excise Act, which is pending, also considering their period of detention in jail i.e. applicant No.1 since 24.03.2025 and applicant No.2 since 25.03.2025, and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 4 8. Let the applicants - Jharendra Manikpuri and Dashrath Meena, involved in Crime No. 38/2025 registered at Police Station Bhanpuri, District - Bastar (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) and 41(1) of the C.G. Excise Act, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants 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 5 of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are 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 them in accordance with law. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Akhil Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice
Arguments
2 - Dashrath Meena S/o Shri Amar Singh Meena, Aged About 46 Years R/o Geeta Colony Ward No. 10, Near, Railway Station Chandrawati Ganj Indore Tahsil - Saver District - Indore (M.P.) ... Applicant(s) versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bhanpuri, District - Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13/08/2025 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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 38/2025 registered at Police Station 2 Bhanpuri, District - Bastar (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) and 41(1) of the C.G. Excise Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.03.2025, at about 21:05 hours, the ofÏcers of Police Station Bhanpuri received secret information from an informant that some persons had stored liquor for sale at Nandpura village, behind Mata Mandir. Acting upon the said information, the police conducted a search and allegedly seized 136.260 bulk litres of liquor from co-accused Dipendra Mourya. His memorandum statement was recorded, wherein he stated that the applicant, Jharendra Manikpuri, had left the liquor at the said place and was engaged in security work. The present applicants were arrested, and after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed on 17.05.2025. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and 132.260 bulk liters of liquor was seized from the possession of the co-accused, Dipendra Maurya, the name of present applicant has come into light from the memorandum statement of the said co-accused and no seizure of any intoxicant substance has been made from the possession of the present 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 the applicant No.1 has one criminal antecedent, in which, he has already been acquitted and applicant No.2 has one criminal antecedent under the Excise Act, which is pending, further the applicants are in jail since 3 applicant No.1 – 24.03.2025 and applicant No.2 – 25.03.2025, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 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 each applicants have one criminal antecedent. He further submits that 132 bulk liters of the liquor was recovered from the joint possession of the applicants and another co-accused persons, therefore, they are 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 applicants, it