ARVIND RAJPUT vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010291212026 2026:CGHC:38417
NAFR
VAIBHAV
SINGH
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV SINGH
Date: 2026.09.01
11:07:30 +0530
MCRC No. 7101 of 2026
Arvind Rajput S/o Tarun Singh Rajput Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No.11
Gundardehi Police Station - Gunderdehi District- Balod (C.G.)
... Applicant

versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- S H O Police Station Gunderdehi District-
Balod (C.G.) (Details Of Respondent Properly Not Mentioned In Impugned
Order Sheet ) ...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
31.08.2026
1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the
applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.
192/2026 registered at Police Station - Gunderdehi District - Balod
(C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G.
Excise Act.

2
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.06.2026, the police
received secret information that the present applicant was allegedly
selling illicit liquor near Gada Para, in the vicinity of Natwar Gada's
house. Acting upon the said information, the police conducted a raid at
the spot, during which the present applicant was apprehended. Upon
search, 34 bottles/pouches of 180 ml each, total 6.120 bulk litres of
country-made liquor, were allegedly recovered from the possession of
the present applicant. As the applicant could not furnish any
satisfactory explanation regarding possession of the said liquor, the
police seized the same and registered the aforesaid offence against
him
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
further submitted that the applicant has no previous conviction and
that nothing has been seized from his possession; moreover, the
applicant was not apprehended from the alleged place of occurrence.
Learned counsel submits that the alleged offence is triable by the
Magistrate and that the applicant is the sole bread-earner of his family.
It is further submitted that there is no eye-witness to the alleged
incident and that the applicant has been falsely implicated merely on
the basis of suspicion and apprehension. Learned counsel further
submits that the previous criminal case relied upon by the prosecution
has already been disposed of and the applicant has been acquitted by
the competent Trial Court. It is also submitted that the applicant is in
judicial custody since 18.06.2026, undertakes to appear before the
Trial Court on each and every date of hearing, and shall not misuse
the liberty of bail. Hence, the applicant deserves to be released on

3
regular bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application
of the present applicant and submits that the applicant has one
previous criminal antecedent, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant
of regular bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the
nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, and
further taking into account the period of detention, as the applicant
has remained in judicial custody since 18.06.2026, and the fact that
the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court,
and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time,
this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant.
7. Let the Applicant – Arvind Rajput, involved in Crime No. 192/2026
registered at Police Station - Gunderdehi District- Balod (C.G.), for
the offences punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act.,
be released on bail on his 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
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

4
his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient
cause, the trial court may proceed against his 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.
8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Vaibhav