Chattisgarh High Court
Ajay Markande vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
2026:CGHC:12737
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1809 of 2026
Ajay Markande S/o Manmohan Markande Aged About 30 Years R/o Bhagat
Singh Ward Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara City, District- Balodabazar-
Bhatapara (C.G.) ...Applicant
VAIBHAV
SINGH versus
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV SINGH
Date: 2026.03.18
11:16:57 +0530
State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Of Police
Station Bhatapara (Gramin), District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.03.2026
1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 25/2026, registered at Police Station - Bhatapara (Gramin), District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and Section 111 of the BNS.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 09.01.2026, acting on information received from an informer, the police conducted a raid at the house of Amar Yadu and recovered 46 quarters of liquor (admeasuring 8.28 bulk litres) from his possession. During interrogation, Amar Yadu, in his memorandum statement, disclosed that he used to sell liquor in the village and that the same was supplied by Nitesh Ratre, who runs a tea shop, and that he had purchased 50 quarters from him for a sum of Rs. 7,000/-. Thereafter, Amar Yadu was arrested, and during the course of investigation, the police apprehended Nitesh Ratre, recorded his memorandum statement, and seized 50 quarters of liquor (admeasuring 9 bulk litres) from his possession. In his memorandum, Nitesh Ratre disclosed the name of the present applicant and other co-accused persons, upon which the police proceeded with further investigation and arrested the present applicant for the alleged offences. It is further alleged that from the possession of the present applicant, 41 quarters of country- made liquor (admeasuring 7.380 bulk litres) were seized, and he was subsequently taken into custody.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicnat has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted The applicant submits that he is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not acted in the manner alleged by the prosecution. It is contended that initially the police arrested co- accused Amar Yadu and seized 8.28 bulk litres of illicit liquor from his possession, and on the basis of his memorandum statement, Nitesh Ratre was arrested, from whose possession 9 bulk litres of liquor was seized. Thereafter, solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of Nitesh Ratre, the present applicant and other co-accused persons have been implicated and arrested for the alleged offences. The applicant was not named in the FIR and has been arraigned in the present case only on the basis of such memorandum statements, without any independent or corroborative evidence. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 09.01.2026, and his continued detention is unjustified in the absence of any direct material connecting him with the alleged offence; therefore, he deserves to be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. It is further contended that the applicant has a criminal history of seven cases registered against him at Police Station Bhatapara City under the provisions of the C.G. Excise Act. Out of these, Crime No. 06/2018 under Section 34(A) resulted in acquittal on 09.03.2024, Crime No. 123/2022 resulted in acquittal on 26.09.2026, and Crime No. 381/2023 resulted in acquittal vide order dated 26.11.2025; however, the remaining cases, namely Crime No. 13/2022, Crime No. 323/2020, Crime No. 116/2022, and Crime No. 348/2022, are still pending for evidence/trial before the competent Court. Learned State Counsel submits that despite earlier involvement in similar offences, the applicant has continued to indulge in such illegal activities, which clearly indicates his habitual nature. It is argued that the pendency of multiple cases of similar nature demonstrates a pattern of repeated offences, and if released on bail, there is every likelihood that the applicant may again indulge in such activities or misuse the liberty granted to him. Therefore, considering the gravity of the allegations, the criminal antecedents of the applicant, and the likelihood of repetition of offences, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also taking into account the fact that four cases are pending against the applicant under the Excise Act, which clearly indicates that the applicant is a habitual offender, and further, in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused on the ground of having previous criminal antecedents, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not warrant the grant of regular bail to the applicant.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Ajay Markande, involved in Crime No. 25/2026, registered at Police Station - Bhatapara (Gramin), District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and Section 111 of the BNS, is rejected.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav