The presence of prior criminal antecedents can impact bail considerations, as seen in the case of Deepak Yadav.

Order on Board

24.07.2025

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. 11/2025, registered at Police Station- Madded District- Bijapur, (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and 3/181 Motor Vehicle Act .

2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, as per the secret information received from the informant, on the basis of such information, the police ofÏcials conducted raid and have seized 15.6 bulk liters RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN liquor from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, the crime has been registered against the applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and no seizure has been made from the exclusive possession of the applicant, police has wrongly arrested the present applicant. He further submits that there is no any evidence of doing the work of sale of liquor by the present applicant. He further submits that the present applicant has no any criminal antecedents under the Excise Act. He also submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.07.2025 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 State Counsel 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. She further pointed out that the present applicant has 02 criminal antecedents under the similar nature, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender. As such, he is not entitled for grant of bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case also considering the fact that learned State counsel has pointed out that the present applicant has 02 criminal antecedents under the similar nature, shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender and also in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail, accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Ramarao Agde, involved in Crime No. 11/2025, registered at Police Station- Madded District- Bijapur, (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and 3/181 Motor Vehicle Act v, is rejected at this stage.

7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.

8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.