2026:CGHC:6775 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1243 of 2026 Jai @ Sallu S/o Shri Sanatan Balraagi, Aged About 30 Years R/o Jalhind Chowk, Ram Nagar, P.S. Gudhiyari, District Raipur C.G.

... Applicant(s)

versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Gudhiyari, District Raipur C.G.

... Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer.

Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

06/02/2026

1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 260/2018 registered at Police Station : Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section

34(2) of C.G. Excise Act.

2. Prosecution story in brief is that on the date of the incident, the police received secret information that an unknown person was transporting illegal country-made liquor (Mahua) on a motorcycle for the purpose of sale. Acting upon the said information, the police conducted a search and allegedly seized 5.400 litres of country-made Mahua liquor from the possession of the applicant at an open place, which led to the registration of alleged offence against the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2018 in MCRC No.9180 of 2018, the applicant failed to appear before the trial Court, misusing the liberty of bail repeatedly since the year 2018. The accused remained absent on several dates during trial, due to which arrest warrants were issued against him on multiple occasions. Despite being granted bail after arrest, the accused again violated the bail conditions and absented himself, leading to issuance of repeated arrest warrants, declaration as absconding, and issuance of permanent arrest warrants and the applicant was arrested on 18.11.2025. Hence, the bail application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant’s first bail application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 9180/2018. Thereafter, the applicant could not appear before the learned Court below due to lack of knowledge, which was a bona fide and unintentional mistake, and as a result, he was arrested and sent to jail. the non-appearance of the applicant was neither deliberate nor intentional, and the same deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. Hence, he prays that the applicant to be enlarged on bail

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case. She further submits that the applicant repeatedly misused the liberty of bail, remained absent during trial proceedings, violated bail conditions, and was declared absconding, thereby causing undue delay in the trial since 2018 and demonstrating a likelihood of absconding again if released on bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. From perusal of the impugned order and case diary, it prima facie appears that after being granted bail by the Court in the year 2018, the applicant has consistently misused the liberty of bail by remaining absent on several dates fixed for trial. Owing to his repeated non-appearance, the trial Court was compelled to issue arrest warrants on multiple occasions. Even after his arrest and being granted bail again, the applicant allegedly violated the conditions of bail and absconded, resulting in the issuance of repeated arrest warrants, his declaration as an absconder, and the issuance of permanent arrest warrants against him. Furthermore, the applicant’s deliberate and negligent conduct has been the principal reason for the case remaining pending since the year 2018, despite direction