Court denied bail citing habitual offender status and lack of evidence to justify applicant's arrest.

Order on Board

02.07.2025

1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section

483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.193/2024, registered at Police Station-Hathband, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2), 59(A) and 36 of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and Section 111 of BNS. (As per charge-sheet).

2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, on 13-10-2024, the police of Police Station Hathband, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) received secrete information from the informant and on the basis of said information, the police of said police station seized 4788 bulk liter of illicit liquor from the possession of other co-accused persons i.e. Laxmi Nath Yadu, Baratu Yadav and Sarju Yadav and subsequently the matter being investigated by the police and on the basis of memorandum statement of the other co-accused persons, the name of present applicant has been arrayed as an accused. Therefore, the aforementioned offence have been levelled against the applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the memorandum statement of Laxmi Nath Yadu was recorded on 13- 10-2024, in which the name of present applicant is nowhere mentioned, subsequently the memorandum statement of other persons i.e. Sarju Yadu & Baratu Yadav was recorded on 17-10- 2024, in which there is no allegation leveled against the present applicant with regard to the commission of alleged offences and on 13-02-2025, the memorandum statement of Dilip was recorded, he mentioned in the name of present applicant and on the basis of memorandum statement of applicant i.e. Dilip, the present applicant has been implicated for the commission of alleged offences and even if entire memorandum statement of Dilip, the name of applicant not mentioned to demonstrate that on what basis the applicant has been implicated for the commission of alleged offences, so the applicant has been arrested without there being any evidence available against him only on the ground that he is having previous criminal antecedent. He further submits that the applicant cannot be detained only on the ground that he is having previous criminal antecedent and every case has to be decided on its own merits. So far the present case is concerned, from the possession of present applicant, no illicit liquor was seized and only a vacant cartoon and mobile has been seized. Since the supplementary charge-sheet was filed by the police against the applicant, no CDR report was filed along with the charge sheet to demonstrate that the applicant is used to talek with the other person and committed the alleged offences. He also submits that the similarly situated co-accused persons of this case have been granted regular bail by this Court in MCRC No.7924/2024 vide order dated 03-01-2025 and MCRC No. 1321/2025 vide order dated 17-02-2025 and MCRC No.1928/2025 vide order dated 10- 03-2025 and the case of present applicant is better footed than the case of the other co-accused persons. He also submits that under Section 34(2) of the Chattisgarh Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years and he is in jail since 01.02.2025 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for releasing the applicant on regular bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the quantity of liquor s