[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Ram Ashray Porte vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
2026:CGHC:13193
Digitally
signed by
NAFR
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2582 of 2026
1 - Ram Ashray Porte S/o Rajkumar Aged About 33 Years R/o Village
Bodalpara, Thana Pali, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Sushil Netam S/o Radheshyam Netam Aged About 25 Years R/o
Village Saragbundiya, Thana Pali, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Excise Circle, Dipka, Distt. Korba,
Chhattisgarh.
... Non-Applicant(s)
For Applicants : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
19/03/2026
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. 272/2026 registered at Police Station- Excise Circle, Dipka,
District- Korba (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section
34(1) (क) (च), 34(2), 59 (क) of C.G. Excise Act (as per charge sheet)
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 09.01.2026, acting upon
secret information received from an informant, the police conducted
a search of the applicants and allegedly seized 48 litres of Mahua
liquor and 400 kilograms of Mahua Lahan from the joint possession
of the applicants. Thereafter, the applicants were arrested on the
same day, i.e., 09.01.2026. Based upon such, the police have
registered aforesaid offences against the applicants.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are
innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case.
He further submits that the said liquor which has been seized from
open place and not from the possession of applicants. He further
submits that under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, minimum
punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years and
the applicants have no previous criminal antecedents and in the
present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court
and the applicants are in jail since 09.01.2026 and the conclusion of
the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of
regular bail to the applicants.
4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the
State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that in
the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent
Court and so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicants are
concerned, the applicants have no criminal antecedents further the
quantity of liquor seized from the joint possession of the applicants
i.e. 48 litres of Mahua liquor and 400 kilograms of Mahua Lahan.
Accordingly, the present applicants are not entitled for grant of bail.
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,
nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicants and
the fact that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before
the competent Court and the applicants have no criminal
antecedents further the quantity of liquor seized from the joint
possession of the applicants i.e. 48 litres of Mahua liquor and 400
kilograms of Mahua Lahan and further they are 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
applicants.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants is allowed.
8. Let the applicants - Ram Ashray Porte and Sushil Netam,
involved in Crime No. 272/2026 registered at Police Station- Excise
Circle, Dipka, District- Korba (C.G.), for the offence punishable
under Section 34(1) (क) (च), 34(2), 59 (क) of C.G. Excise Act, be
released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two
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 misuses 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
deliberated 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.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith.
- S/- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Kunal
