[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Baratram Yadav vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:12132
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1354 of 2026
Baratram Yadav S/o Shri Panchram Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Village-
Mugulbhatha Thana- Kasdol Distt- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
... Applicant
VAIBHAV
SINGH
Digitally signed by
versus
VAIBHAV SINGH
Date: 2026.03.16
11:40:03 +0530
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Excise Officer- Excise Circle Kasdol,
Distt- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shirvastava, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
13.03.2026
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
applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.
114/2025 registered at Police Station - Excise Circle Kasdol, District-
Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), for the offences punishable under
Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the C.G. Excise Act.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.12.2025 the officers
of Excise Circle Kasdol received a secret information from the
informant, made the search at Village Mugulbhatha and alleged to
have seized 30. Bulk Liter country made mahua liquor, arrested the
present applicant on the basis of doubt and after completing the
investigation filed the charge-sheet.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. It is submitted that the applicant has no involvement in the
alleged offence and has been arrested by the police merely on the
basis of suspicion. The applicant has no concern with the alleged
liquor, as the same was seized from an open place near the cremation
ground and there is no evidence on record to establish that the
applicant was in possession of the said liquor. The prosecution
agency has also failed to collect any material to show that the place of
seizure or the liquor belonged to the applicant, particularly when
several persons were present near the place of the alleged incident,
yet the Excise officials arrested the applicant only on the basis of
doubt. It is further submitted that the prosecution agency did not
properly measure the alleged liquor and without any measurement
mentioned it as 30 bulk litres in the seizure memo, and the seizure
witnesses were called at the time of preparing the memo. The
investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been
filed, and the offence alleged against the applicant is triable by the
Judicial Magistrate First Class. The applicant has no previous criminal
conviction and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its
conclusion. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address
mentioned in the cause title and there is no likelihood of his
absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses. The
applicant is ready to furnish bail bond and surety to the satisfaction of
this Hon'ble Court and undertakes to abide by all the terms and
conditions that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court while granting
bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application
of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has
already been filed in the present case and that the applicant has two
previous criminal antecedent, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant
of regular bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the
nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant,
and further taking into account that the charge-sheet has already been
submitted before the competent Court and the applicant has remained
in jail since 24.12.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take
some time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the present
applicant.
7. Let the Applicant - Baratram Yadav, involved in Crime No. 114/2025
registered at Police Station - Excise Circle Kasdol, District-
Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), for the offences punishable under
Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the C.G. Excise Act, be released on bail
on his furnishing personal bond with two local 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 his 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Vaibhav
