[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Muneshwar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:16185
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1232 of 2026
Muneshwar Yadav S/o Ramprashad Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o
Village- Udaipur Police Station And Tehsil- Udaipur, District- Surguja
Chhattisgarh,
... Applicant(s)
versus
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station
Digitally
signed by
KUNAL
Udaipur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh,
DEWANGAN
... Non-applicant(s)
For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
08.04.2026
1.
The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section
483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of
regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.
03/2026, registered at Police Station : Udaipur, District- Surguja
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G.
Excise Act.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 04.01.2026, the police party
received credible information from a reliable source that
accused/applicant- Muneshwar Yadav was illegally transporting
English liquor for the purpose of sale in a Jello vehicle bearing
registration No. OR-02-BL-7117 from Lakhanpur towards Udaipur,
acting upon the said information, the police immediately proceeded
and intercepted the said vehicle near Mrigadand Mod and upon
search conducted in accordance with law after preparing a
panchnama, 22 bottles of Jammu Special Whisky (180 ml each)
and 08 bottles of Royal Stag Deluxe Whisky (375 ml each) were
recovered from the possession of the accused/applicant, upon
being questioned and served with notice under Section 94 of the
BNSS, the accused/applicant failed to produce any valid licence or
permit for carrying the alleged liquor, whereupon the recovered
liquor along with the vehicle was seized and taken into possession
in accordance with law, the accused/applicant was arrested and
thereafter remanded to judicial custody for the offence punishable
under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, during the course of
investigation, samples of the seized liquor were sent for chemical
examination and the report thereof was duly received and upon
completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet before the
competent Court.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in this case and the said liquor was not
seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant. It is further
argued by him that under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act,
minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three
years. He further submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has
filed before the competent Court and the applicant is in jail since
04.01.2026 and so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant
are concerned, the applicant has a total of nine criminal
antecedents, out of which seven cases are under Istaghasa, one
case pertains to the BNS and another relates to the Motor Vehicles
Act, all of which have been duly explained in paragraph No. 4(A) of
the bail application and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take
quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the
applicant.
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer for
grant of bail to the applicant and submits that in the present case,
charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and so far
as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, the
applicant has a total of nine criminal antecedents, all of which have
been duly explained in paragraph No. 4(A) of the bail application.
She further submits that from the possession of the present
applicant total 6.960 bulk liters of liquor was seized and as such he
is a habitual offender therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel 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 applicant and
the fact that the applicant has a total of nine criminal antecedents,
out of which seven cases are under Istaghasa, one case pertains to
the BNS and another relates to the Motor Vehicles Act, all of which
have been duly explained in paragraph No. 4(A) of the bail
application and also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has
been filed before the competent Court and the quantity of liquor
seized from the possession of the applicant i.e. 6.960 bulk liters of
liquor and he is in jail since 04.01.2026 and conclusion of the trial is
likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail
to the present applicant.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed.
8. Let applicant, Muneshwar Yadav, involved in Crime No. 03/2026,
registered at Police Station : Udaipur, District- Surguja (C.G.) for
the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act,
be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two
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.
(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.
9. 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
Kunal
