[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Sumeet Manhare vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:16966
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed MCRC No. 1789 of 2026
by ABHISHEK
SHRIVAS
ABHISHEK
SHRIVAS Date:
2026.04.15 Sumeet Manhare S/o Shri Ramkumar Manhare Aged About 25 Years R/o
10:54:36
+0530
Village - Sandi (Mudpar), Police Station- Palari, District- Balodabazar-
Bhatapara (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer of Police Station- Palari,
District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Khilendra Sahu, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
13.04.2026
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. 53/2026,
registered at Police Station Palari, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise
Act.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 02.02.2026, acting on secret
information received from an informant, the police of Police Station Palari
seized 7.20 bulk litres of country-made masala liquor from the
possession of the co-accused, Ganeshuram Gaikwad, at village Mudpar.
In connection with the said incident, a case was registered against the
co-accused under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act. During the course of
investigation, the co-accused, Ganeshuram Gaikwad, was interrogated
on the spot regarding the seized liquor, and his memorandum statement
was recorded, wherein it was alleged that the seized liquor had been
supplied to him for sale by the present applicant, Sumeet Manhare. On
the basis of the said memorandum statement, the present applicant was
taken into custody and interrogated, and an amount alleged to be
proceeds of the sale of liquor was seized from him. Upon finding his
alleged involvement in the offence, a case was registered against the
applicant under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, and the matter was
taken up for investigation.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the present
applicant has two criminal antecedents - one case under the Excise Act,
which is pending trial, and another case under the IPC, which has
already been disposed of on the basis of compromise. An explanation in
this regard has already been provided in paragraph No. 4(a) of the
present bail application. He further submits that under Section 34(2) of
the Excise Act, the minimum punishment is one year and the maximum
punishment is three years, and the applicant has been in jail since
02.02.2026. The trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion.
Therefore, he prays for the grant of bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail
application and submits that, looking to the criminal antecedents of the
applicant under the Excise Act, the applicant appears to be a habitual
offender. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the 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 02 criminal antecedents, 01 case under the Excise Act,
which is pending trial, and another case under the IPC, which has
already been disposed of on the basis of compromise. An explanation in
this regard has already been provided in paragraph No. 4(a) of the
present bail application and also considering the fact that the charge-
sheet has been filed and the applicant has been in jail since 02.02.2026
and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am
inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant.
7. Let applicant, Sumeet Manhare, involved in Crime No. 53/2026,
registered at Police Station Palari, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara
(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.
8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Abhishek
