Chattisgarh High Court
Sunil Kumar Mahto vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:14075
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2171 of 2026
Sunil Kumar Mahto Son Of Vishwanath Mahto Aged About 38 Years
Resident Of Ganesh Chowk, Charouda, P.S. - Purani Bhilai, Tahsil And
District - Durg, Chhattisgarh.. ... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station -
Kumhari, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. ...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate.
VAIBHAV
SINGH For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer.
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV SINGH
Date: 2026.03.25
12:10:34 +0530
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
24.03.2026
1.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. 244/2025 registered at Police Station - Kumhari, District - Durg (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.
2
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the police has received information through informant during patrolling that on the date of incident, unknown person has kept illegal liquor in his possession to sale, and police has seized 09 bulk litres country made liquor from place of incident at open place and applicant did not produce any document of seized liquor and hence police has registered a case for offence punishable under section 34 (2) of the Excise Act against the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that no incriminating article has been seized from the possession of the applicant and the alleged illicit liquor was recovered from an open place, without establishing any conscious possession of the applicant. It is further submitted that the investigation has not been conducted in a fair and proper manner and the applicant has been roped in without any credible evidence. The applicant is an innocent person and had no knowledge regarding the alleged contraband. It is also submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 13.12.2025. Hence, it is most humbly prayed that the applicant may kindly be enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the applicant has two previous criminal antecedent, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of regular bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
3
6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, and further taking into account the period of detention, as the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 13.12.2025, and the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant.
7. Let the Applicant - Sunil Kumar Mahto, involved in Crime No. 244/2025 registered at Police Station - Kumhari, District - Durg (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act., be released on bail on his furnishing 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 his 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 accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya 4 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.
8. 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 Vaibhav