Amir Kuraishi vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 285 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Amir Kuraishi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                                1




                                                                                2026:CGHC:11450
                                                                                                NAFR

                                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                                   MCRC No. 2223 of 2026

                        Amir Kuraishi S/o Mansur Kuraishi, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Ward No.
                        21, Sunsuniya, Police Station And Tahsil Bagbahra District Mahasamund C.G.
                                                                                            ... Applicant
                                                            versus
                        State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Komakhan, District
                        Mahasamund C.G.
                                                                                       ... Non-applicant

                        For Applicant                 : Ms. Manisha Thakur, Advocate.
                        For Non-applicant/State       : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer.

                                        Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
           Digitally
           signed by
           ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK
SHRIVAS
           SHRIVAS
           Date:
                                                       Order on Board
           2026.03.11
           11:39:20
           +0530
                   10.03.2026

                        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. 85/2025,

registered at Police Station Komakhan, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for

the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act.

2. As per the brief facts of the prosecution case, the police of Police Station

Komakhan registered a case under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act

against the applicant, alleging that he was carrying 22 bulk litres of

country-made Mahua liquor, which was seized by the police, and

thereafter he was arrested.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is

falsely implicated in this case. She submits that the present applicant has

no criminal antecedents under the Excise Act. She further submits that

under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year

and maximum punishment is three years, and the applicant has been in

jail since 26.08.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time for its

conclusion, therefore, She prays grant of bail to the applicant.

4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail

application and submits that the present applicant has 01 criminal

antecedent under the Excise Act. She also submits that from the

possession of the present applicant 22 bulk litres of country-made

Mahua liquor were seized, 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 only 01 criminal antecedent under the Excise Act which

is a pending trial and also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has

been filed and the applicant has been in jail since 26.08.2025 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, Amir Kuraishi, involved in Crime No. 85/2025, registered

at Police Station Komakhan, District - Mahasamund (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