[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Ajay Markande vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
2026:CGHC:12737
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1809 of 2026
Ajay Markande S/o Manmohan Markande Aged About 30 Years R/o Bhagat
Singh Ward Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara City, District- Balodabazar-
Bhatapara (C.G.) ...Applicant
VAIBHAV
SINGH versus
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV SINGH
Date: 2026.03.18
11:16:57 +0530
State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Of Police
Station Bhatapara (Gramin), District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
17.03.2026
1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section
483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in
connection with Crime No. 25/2026, registered at Police Station -
Bhatapara (Gramin), District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G) for the
offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise
Act and Section 111 of the BNS.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 09.01.2026, acting on
information received from an informer, the police conducted a raid at
the house of Amar Yadu and recovered 46 quarters of liquor
(admeasuring 8.28 bulk litres) from his possession. During
interrogation, Amar Yadu, in his memorandum statement, disclosed
that he used to sell liquor in the village and that the same was
supplied by Nitesh Ratre, who runs a tea shop, and that he had
purchased 50 quarters from him for a sum of Rs. 7,000/-. Thereafter,
Amar Yadu was arrested, and during the course of investigation, the
police apprehended Nitesh Ratre, recorded his memorandum
statement, and seized 50 quarters of liquor (admeasuring 9 bulk litres)
from his possession. In his memorandum, Nitesh Ratre disclosed the
name of the present applicant and other co-accused persons, upon
which the police proceeded with further investigation and arrested the
present applicant for the alleged offences. It is further alleged that
from the possession of the present applicant, 41 quarters of country-
made liquor (admeasuring 7.380 bulk litres) were seized, and he was
subsequently taken into custody.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicnat has been
falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted The applicant
submits that he is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated
in the present case and has not acted in the manner alleged by the
prosecution. It is contended that initially the police arrested co-
accused Amar Yadu and seized 8.28 bulk litres of illicit liquor from his
possession, and on the basis of his memorandum statement, Nitesh
Ratre was arrested, from whose possession 9 bulk litres of liquor was
seized. Thereafter, solely on the basis of the memorandum statement
of Nitesh Ratre, the present applicant and other co-accused persons
have been implicated and arrested for the alleged offences. The
applicant was not named in the FIR and has been arraigned in the
present case only on the basis of such memorandum statements,
without any independent or corroborative evidence. The applicant has
been in judicial custody since 09.01.2026, and his continued detention
is unjustified in the absence of any direct material connecting him with
the alleged offence; therefore, he deserves to be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the
State/non-applicant vehemently opposes the bail application and
submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the
competent Court. It is further contended that the applicant has a
criminal history of seven cases registered against him at Police
Station Bhatapara City under the provisions of the C.G. Excise Act.
Out of these, Crime No. 06/2018 under Section 34(A) resulted in
acquittal on 09.03.2024, Crime No. 123/2022 resulted in acquittal on
26.09.2026, and Crime No. 381/2023 resulted in acquittal vide order
dated 26.11.2025; however, the remaining cases, namely Crime No.
13/2022, Crime No. 323/2020, Crime No. 116/2022, and Crime No.
348/2022, are still pending for evidence/trial before the competent
Court. Learned State Counsel submits that despite earlier involvement
in similar offences, the applicant has continued to indulge in such
illegal activities, which clearly indicates his habitual nature. It is argued
that the pendency of multiple cases of similar nature demonstrates a
pattern of repeated offences, and if released on bail, there is every
likelihood that the applicant may again indulge in such activities or
misuse the liberty granted to him. Therefore, considering the gravity of
the allegations, the criminal antecedents of the applicant, and the
likelihood of repetition of offences, the applicant does not deserve to
be enlarged on bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also taking
into account the fact that four cases are pending against the applicant
under the Excise Act, which clearly indicates that the applicant is a
habitual offender, and further, in light of the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh
& Another, (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
cancelled the bail granted to the accused on the ground of having
previous criminal antecedents, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the present case does not warrant the grant of regular bail to the
applicant.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Ajay Markande,
involved in Crime No. 25/2026, registered at Police Station -
Bhatapara (Gramin), District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G) for the
offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise
Act and Section 111 of the BNS, is rejected.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
vaibhav
