[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Surajmani Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11708
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2288 of 2026
Surajmani Sahu S/o Kirtan Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Jognipali, Police
Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh.
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Gagan Pandey, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
11.03.2026
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. 11/2026,
ABHISHEK SHRIVAS
SHRIVAS Date:
2026.03.12
10:59:35 +0530
registered at Police Station Saraipali, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for
the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 09.01.2026, the police received secret
information that a person was waiting near Gopinath Ashram in Village
Jognipali. Acting upon the said information, the police reached the spot
and recovered a total of 30 bulk litres of handmade mahua liquor from
the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, an FIR was
registered under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act.
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. He 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 09.01.2026 and the trial is likely to take some time for its
conclusion, therefore, he 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 30 bulk litres of handmade 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 09.01.2026 and
conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined
to grant regular bail to the present applicant.
7. Let applicant, Surajmani Sahu, involved in Crime No. 11/2026,
registered at Police Station Saraipali, 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
