The gravity of the crime coupled with abscondence justifies the denial of bail in illegal liquor manufacturing cases.

Order on Board

24.07 .202 5

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. 101/2025, registered at Police Station - Urga, District Korba, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 3 4(2) and 59(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and Sections 111 (2)(b) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .

2. The prosecution story in brief, is that a raid was conducted on

02.04.2025 at a location where country-made Mahua liquor was being illegally manufactured. During the raid, co-accused Rajju RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Dhanuhar was apprehended from the spot, and a substantial quantity of illicit liquor measuring 860 liters, along with utensils and motorcycles used in its manufacture, was seized. The applicant is alleged to have fled from the scene at the time of the raid. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was filed on 31.05.2025, naming the applicant as absconding, and a standing arrest warrant was issued against him. The applicant was later arrested on 21.06.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to his inability to fulfill an alleged illegal demand of ₹50,000 made by the police when they attempted to confiscate his motorcycle from a nearby stream where he had gone to bathe. He further submits that, despite the applicant’s continuous appearance before the District Magistrate in proceedings relating to the vehicle seizure, the Investigating OfÏcer deliberately prepared false “Ferrari Panchnamas” on 18.05.2025 and 28.05.2025, portraying the applicant as absconding, which is contrary to the Collector’s record and demonstrates abuse of process. He further pointed out that ofÏcial notices to appear before the District Magistrate were duly served upon the applicant by the Superintendent of Police, Korba, proving that the police were aware of his whereabouts, yet contradictory reports were filed declaring him a fugitive. The order sheets of the Collectorate Court clearly record the applicant’s personal presence on 22.05.2025, 12.06.2025, and 19.06.2025, disproving the prosecution’s claim of abscondence. It was further submitted that no illicit liquor or material was recovered from the applicant, as the alleged seizure was made only from the co-accused and the general surroundings. He also submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 21.06.2025 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, the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court. She further submits that the allegations against the applicant are grave in nature, involving large-scale illegal manufacture of country-made Mahua liquor. She further submits that during the raid conducted on 02.04.2025, 860 liters of illicit liquor along with utensils and motorcycles used for manufacturing were seized, and while co- accused Rajju Dhanuhar was apprehended from the spot, the present applicant fled from the scene to evade arrest. She also submits that the applicant remained absconding for a considerable period, which compelled the Investigating OfÏcer to file the charge- sheet on 31.05.2025 by naming him as absconding and a standing arrest warrant had to be issued. The applicant was arrested only later on 21.06.2025, demonstrating his deliberate attempt to evade the process of law. Hence, 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 fact and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact