Chattisgarh High Court
Rambali Prasad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
2026:CGHC:11705
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2305 of 2026
Rambali Prasad S/o Shri Surya Prasad Aged About 47 Years R/o
Village- Mandipara Bagbahra Police Station And Tahsil- Bagbahra
District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ...Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer. P.S. Bagbahra
District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent
VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV For Applicant : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate. SINGH For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Date:
2026.03.12 11:27:10 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.03.2026
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. 18/2026, registered at Police Station - Bagbahra District - Mahasamund (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.
2. The prosecution story in brief, is that the police of Police Station Bagbahra,, has registered a case U/s 34(2) of CG Excise Act against the applicant alleging that he has kept 67.14 Bulk Ltrs. of country made Goa liquor in his possession which has been seized and arrested the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicnat has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that he has not acted in the manner alleged by the prosecution and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that a false seizure memo has been prepared by the police of Police Station Bagbahra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in order to falsely rope in the applicant and there is no evidence to show that the alleged liquor was seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 26.01.2026 and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion as the matter is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and therefore the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail considering his period of detention. It is also submitted that the evidence collected by the prosecution is not prima facie sufficient to hold the applicant guilty of the alleged offence. Learned counsel further submits that in earlier cases, namely Crime No. 159/2001 under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and Crime No. 62/2006 under Section 34(1) of the Excise Act, the applicant has already been acquitted by the trial court. It is further submitted that Crime No. 218/2023 under Section 34(1) of the Excise Act and Crime No. 59/2024 under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act are pending due to non-
appearance of witnesses, and Crime No. 285/2024 under Section 36(c) of the Excise Act is pending for recording the statement of the accused. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title of the application and therefore there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposed the bail application and submitted that, in the present case, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. It is further submitted that the applicant has criminal antecedents. Crime No. 159/2001 under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and Crime No. 62/2006 under Section 34(1) of the Excise Act have already been disposed of by the trial Court, wherein the applicant has been acquitted. However, Crime No. 218/2023 under Section 34(1) of the Excise Act, Crime No. 59/2024 under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act and Crime No. 285/2024 under Section 36(c) of the Excise Act are still pending before the trial Court. Learned State Counsel contends that the pendency of the aforesaid cases indicates that the applicant is a habitual offender and, therefore, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also taking into account the fact that two cases are pending against the applicant under the Excise Act, which clearly indicates that the applicant is a habitual offender, and further, in light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another , (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused on the ground of having previous criminal antecedents, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not warrant the grant of regular bail to the applicant.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant - Rambali Prasad, involved in Crime No. 18/2026, registered at Police Station - Bagbahra District - Mahasamund(C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, is rejected.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav