[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Jitendra Kumar Kurre @ Kallu vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:10310
NAFR
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
Digitally
signed by
KUNAL
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
DEWANGAN
MCRC No. 2020 of 2026
Jitendra Kumar Kurre @ Kallu S/o Late Mannu Lal Kurre Aged About 30
Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Jitendra Kumar Kurre @ Kal In The
Impugned Order), R/o- Jamkot Para, Ward No. 4, Kondagaon, Police
Station- Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.)
... Applicant(s)
versus
The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Bhanpuri, District-
Bastar (C.G.)
... Non-Applicant(s)
For Applicant : Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
27/02/2026
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. 120/2025 registered at Police Station- Bhanpuri, District-
Bastar (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2), 36
of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and 281 of the Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that it is alleged that on
09.10.2025, acting upon a tip-off, the police personnel intercepted
three different vehicles, namely Maruti Car No. CG-04-PB-7951,
Scorpio No. CG-04-QD-7778 and Duster Car No. CG-04-HD-6858,
and allegedly seized different quantities of Indian Made Foreign
Liquor (Goa Brand Whisky) from the said vehicles. It is further
alleged that from the third vehicle, i.e., Duster Car No. CG-04-HD-
6858, 15 cartons containing 50 quarter bottles of 180 ml each (total
135 litres) were seized and the applicant was found travelling in the
said vehicle along with two other accused persons, namely
Hupendra Nag and Pramendra Kumar Kurre. Since the accused
persons could not produce any valid authority or licence for
possession of the liquor, the police registered the alleged offence
and arrested the accused persons for the commission of a non-
bailable offence and they were thereafter remanded to judicial
custody.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in a concocted and
exaggerated case and has no nexus with the co-accused persons
or with the allegedly seized liquor. It is submitted that the basic
ingredients of the alleged offence are lacking and the prosecution
story itself falsifies the allegations against the applicant. It is further
submitted that the allegations are primarily based on the disclosure
statements of co-accused persons, who in order to save themselves
have tried to shift the blame upon others and that different quantities
of liquor were allegedly seized from three independent vehicles
having no connection with each other, yet a common FIR has been
registered only to show a larger quantity. It is also submitted that all
the co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this
Court, therefore the applicant is also entitled to bail on the ground of
parity.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel, appearing for the
State/non-applicant, submit that the charge-sheet has been filed
before the competent Court and the trial is currently in progress. He
further concur with the submission made on behalf of the applicant
to the effect that the principle of parity may be considered, however,
he contend that the serious nature of the offences, the ongoing
investigation and the possibility of influencing witnesses weigh
against granting bail to the applicant at this stage.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and
gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since
09.10.2025 and further the fact that similarly situated co-accused
namely Hupendra Nag and Pramendra Kumar Kurre @ Chhotu
have been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 8755/2025, vide
order dated 27.01.2026 and further one of the co-accused namely
Chirag Yadav has also been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No.
10436/2025, vide order dated 27.01.2026 and in the present case,
charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the
applicant has only one criminal antecedent which has already
been explained in the bail application of para 4(A) thus, without
further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant bail
to the applicant.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed.
8. Let the applicant - Jitendra Kumar Kurre @ Kallu, involved in
Crime No. 120/2025 registered at Police Station- Bhanpuri, District-
Bastar (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2), 36
of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and 281 of the Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, be released on bail on his furnishing a 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 for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith.
- S/- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Kunal
