Chattisgarh High Court
Mohan Prasad Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:15856
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3077 of 2026
Mohan Prasad Gupta S/o Baijnath Sao Aged About 77 Years Resident Of
Harharguttu Road Jamshedpur, Thana- Bagbeda, District- Purbi-
Singbhum (Jharkhand)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station-
Bodla, District- Kabirdham (C.G.)
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Shailendra Dubey, Advocate along with
Ms. Anjali Pradhan, Advocate
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
07.04.2026
1.Mr. Shailendra Dubey, learned counsel submits that he has filed memo of appearance today before the Registry and prays that he may be permitted to argue the matter on behalf of the applicant.
2. Prayer made by Mr. Shailendra Dubey, Advocate, is allowed.
3. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of RAHUL DEWANGAN regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 199/2025, registered at Police Station Bodla, District- Kabirdham, 2 (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(1)(B), 34(2), 35, 49(A) and 59(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, it is alleged that on receipt of credible information, the Station House Officer came to know that one Nandkumar of Village Pondi, along with his associates, was engaged in the manufacturing of illicit liquor within his residential premises, acting upon such information, a panchnama (memorandum) was prepared and a police team proceeded to the said location as indicated by the informant and cordoned off the house, whereupon Nandkumar Kurre, Islam alias Saddu Khan, Sheikh Sajid and Chhotu alias Dinesh Chandravanshi were found present, and upon inquiry, they allegedly admitted to the illicit activity, thereafter, upon conducting personal search and search of the premises, 49 pauwa (180 ml each) of illicit country-made liquor (plain), totaling approximately 8.82 bulk liters of a white-colored liquid, were recovered from their joint possession, along with various articles used in the manufacture and packaging of such illicit liquor, including 42 jerrycans of 25 liters capacity, one water jar, six bundles of stickers labeled "Romeo Desi Plain Liquor" (each containing 500 stickers), eight sheets of hologram stickers, one cap-sealing punching machine, seven sacks of empty bottles, a plastic sack containing tin caps marked "Bhatiya Wine Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Mungeli, Chhattisgarh Excise," two water jars fitted with taps, one blue drum, a color printer, five touchscreen mobile phones 3 and two keypad mobile phones, all of which were seized, the said accused persons were arrested and produced before the remand Court, and during the course of investigation, it was further revealed that in furtherance of the alleged illegal activity, they had been in contact with the present applicant Mohan Sao and one Rakesh Kohli, residents of Jamshedpur (Tatanagar), who, being known to Sheikh Sajid, had allegedly supplied the chemicals, stickers, bottle caps and cap-sealing machine used in the preparation of counterfeit liquor, and on the basis of the aforesaid, the present crime has been registered at Police Station Bodla, District Kabirdham, bearing Crime No. 199/2025, under the relevant provisions of law.
5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents He further submits that under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused person, namely, Rakesh Kohli has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 3014/2026 vide order dated 06.04.2026 and and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused. He also submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, and the applicant is in jail since 30.11.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant but could not dispute the fact that co- 4 accused has already been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-
diary.
8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents, further considering the fact that similarly situated co-accused person, namely, Rakesh Kohli has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 3014/2026 vide order dated 06.04.2026 and and the case of the present applicant is identical to that of the co- accused, further the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and he is in jail since 30.11.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant on the ground of parity.
9. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the applicant, Mohan Prasad Gupta, involved in Crime No. 199/2025, registered at Police Station Bodla, District- Kabirdham, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(1)(B), 34(2), 35, 49(A) and 59(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 5 fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
10. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan