Ranjeet Kumar Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 752 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Ranjeet Kumar Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 March, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                  1




                                                                2026:CGHC:13175
                                                                               NAFR

                         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                     MCRC No. 2600 of 2026

             Ranjeet Kumar Singh S/o Ramvijay Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o
             Subhash Nagar Bhagwanpur, P.S. Gandhi Nagar, Tahsil Ambikapur
             District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
                                                                          ... Applicant
                                              versus
             State of Chhattisgarh Through Excise Circle Ambikapur District Surguja
             Chhattisgarh.
                                                                     ... Non-applicant
             For Applicant             : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate.
             For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer.
                             Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
                                         Order on Board

            19.03.2026

             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.

347/2026, registered at Police Station Excise Circle Ambikapur

District Surguja, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections

34(2), 59(A) and 34(1) of the C.G. Excise Act.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the police of Police RAHUL DEWANGAN Station Excise Circle Ambikapur District Surguja, (C.G.), received Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN

an information from the informant and on the basis of the said

information conducted a raid and seized total 135 bulk liters of

foreign made liquor from the possession of the present applicant.

Thereafter, Police has registered an offence punishable under

Sections 34(2), 59(A) and 34(1) of the C.G. Excise Act against the

present applicant.

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

applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.

He further submits that under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act,

minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three

years. He submits that the present applicant has no criminal

antecedents. He also submits that the charge-sheet has been filed

before the competent Court, and the applicant is in jail since

24.01.2026 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 charge-sheet has already been

filed before the competent Court. She also submits that from the

possession of the present applicant total 135 bulk liters of foreign

made liquor was 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 present applicant has no criminal antecedents, the

charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and he is in

jail since 24.01.2026 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take

some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the

present applicant.

7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the

applicant, Ranjeet Kumar Singh, involved in Crime No. 347/2026,

registered at Police Station Excise Circle Ambikapur District

Surguja, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2),

59(A) and 34(1) 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

Rahul Dewangan