[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Karan Ajay vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11704
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2302 of 2026
1 - Karan Ajay S/o Jeeteram Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Balsi, Police
Station Saraipali, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh
2 - Dinesh Sidar S/o Fudulal Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Madhopali,
Police Station Saraipali, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ...Applicants
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Saraipali, District -
Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant
VAIBHAV
SINGH
Digitally signed
by VAIBHAV
SINGH
Date:
2026.03.12
11:27:11 +0530
For Applicants : Mr. Gagan Pandey, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
11.03.2026
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
applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.
18/2026 registered at Police Station - Saraipali, District - Mahasamund
(C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G.
Excise Act.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that, on 20.01.2026, team of Police
Station Saraipali based on secret information seized total 50 bulk liters
of handmade Mahua Liquor from the possession of the present
applicants who transporting the liquor in a Hero Super Splendor
motorcycle having registration no. CG 06 GE 4943 and seized near
village Kendudhar.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants
have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits thatThe
applicants were not present at the time of the alleged seizure and have
been implicated by the police due to dispute, while the alleged
recovery itself is doubtful as the applicants were merely standing at an
open public place accessible to all and the mandatory provisions
relating to search and seizure have not been properly followed. It is
further submitted that the maximum punishment prescribed under
Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act is three years and the
police have not followed the guidelines for arrest as laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, Satender
Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Md. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand
(Criminal Appeal No. 2207/2023, decided on 31.07.2023). Both the
applicants are about 19 years of age and their continued incarceration
would seriously jeopardize their future. The applicants are permanent
residents of their village where their family and property are situated
and there is no likelihood of their absconding. The applicants are in
judicial custody since 20.01.2026, therefore, he prays for grant of
regular bail to the applicants.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, opposes the bail
application of the applicants.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the
nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the present
applicants, and further considering the fact that the charge-sheet has
already been filed, that the applicants have no criminal antecedents,
and that they have been in jail since 20.01.2026, and also keeping in
view that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this
Court is of the opinion that the present applicants are entitled to be
released on bail in this case.
7. Let the applicants - Karan Ajay & Dinesh Sidar involved in Crime No.
18/2026 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 a personal bond with
two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect
that they 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 applicants shall remain present before the trial
court on each date fixed, either personally or through
their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient
cause, the trial court may proceed against them under
Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail
during trial and in order to secure their presence,
proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and
the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date
fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall
initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with
law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) The applicants 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 applicants are 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 them in accordance with law.
8. 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
vaibhav
