[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Sunil Kumar Mahto vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:14075
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2171 of 2026
Sunil Kumar Mahto Son Of Vishwanath Mahto Aged About 38 Years
Resident Of Ganesh Chowk, Charouda, P.S. - Purani Bhilai, Tahsil And
District - Durg, Chhattisgarh.. ... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station -
Kumhari, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. ...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate.
VAIBHAV
SINGH For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer.
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV SINGH
Date: 2026.03.25
12:10:34 +0530
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
24.03.2026
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.
244/2025 registered at Police Station - Kumhari, District - Durg
(C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 34(2) of the Excise
Act.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the police has received
information through informant during patrolling that on the date of
incident, unknown person has kept illegal liquor in his possession to
sale, and police has seized 09 bulk litres country made liquor from
place of incident at open place and applicant did not produce any
document of seized liquor and hence police has registered a case for
offence punishable under section 34 (2) of the Excise Act against the
applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
submitted that no incriminating article has been seized from the
possession of the applicant and the alleged illicit liquor was recovered
from an open place, without establishing any conscious possession of
the applicant. It is further submitted that the investigation has not been
conducted in a fair and proper manner and the applicant has been
roped in without any credible evidence. The applicant is an innocent
person and had no knowledge regarding the alleged contraband. It is
also submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since
13.12.2025. Hence, it is most humbly prayed that the applicant may
kindly be enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application
of the present applicant and submits 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 offence alleged against the applicant, and
further taking into account the period of detention, as the applicant
has remained in judicial custody since 13.12.2025, and the fact that
the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court,
and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time,
this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant.
7. Let the Applicant - Sunil Kumar Mahto, involved in Crime No.
244/2025 registered at Police Station - Kumhari, District - Durg
(C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 34(2) of the 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
