SANTABAI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010335572026 2026:CGHC:38902
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8177 of 2026
Santabai W/o Late Sampyara Madhukar, Aged About 40 Years R/o
VAIBHAV
SINGH
Ward No. 01 Basna, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV SINGH
Date: 2026.09.02
16:41:10 +0530

versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station -
Basna, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant

For Applicant : Ms. Gayatri Chauhan, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
02.09.2026
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. 319/2026, registered at
Police Station - Basna, District - Mahasamund (C.G) for the
offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.06.2026, the Police
of Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.), recovered

2
200 bulk litres of homemade Mahua liquor from the possession
of the present applicant. Accordingly, the applicant was
apprehended and a case was registered against him under the
relevant provisions of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case;
that the applicant is a widow and has a minor child aged about 8
years, who is wholly dependent upon her, and there is no one
else to look after the child; that the husband of the applicant died
on 03.08.2023 and the minor child has no other sibling; that the
charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant has been
in custody since 14.06.2026; that the alleged liquor was not
recovered from the exclusive possession of the applicant and a
false seizure memo has been prepared by the police; that the
mandatory procedure prescribed during the course of
investigation has not been followed by the police; that the
applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in
the cause title and there is no likelihood of her absconding or
tampering with the prosecution witnesses; and that the applicant
is ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by all the terms
and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. On
these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the
applicant may kindly be released on regular bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the

3
State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that
the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent
Court. It is further submitted that the present applicant has as
many as two criminal antecedents, namely, Crime Nos. 85 of
2023 and 636 of 2022, both of similar nature. It is contended that
the aforesaid criminal antecedents prima facie indicate that the
applicant is a habitual offender having a tendency to indulge in
similar criminal activities. It is further submitted that, if the
applicant is released on bail, there is every likelihood of his
repeating similar offences and adversely affecting public peace
and order. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the
allegations, the criminal antecedents of the applicant and the
likelihood of misuse of the liberty of bail, the applicant is not
entitled to the discretionary relief 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, and also
considering that the applicant has not disclosed his two criminal
antecedents before this Court, it appears that he has suppressed
a material fact. The criminal antecedents of the applicant show
that he is a habitual offender. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another,
(2022) 8 SCC 559 , has held that the criminal antecedents of an
accused are an important factor while considering a bail
application. Therefore, in view of the applicant's criminal history

4
and suppression of material facts, this Court is of the opinion that
it is not a fit case to grant regular bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Santabai,
involved in Crime No. 319/2026, registered at Police Station -
Basna, District - Mahasamund (C.G) for the offence punishable
under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, is rejected.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Vaibhav