MUKESH NETAM vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010300702026 2026:CGHC:38689
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No.7173 of 2026
1 - Mukesh Netam S/o Sahdev Netam Aged About 28 Years R/o Village
Partapur Tehsil Pankhajur, District Kanker C.G.
Applicant (s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of
Police Station Partapur District Kanker C.G.
Respondent(s)
For Applicant (s) : Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, PL
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
01.09.2026
1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the
applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime
Digitally
signed
by R
NIRALA
No.10/2026, registered at Police Station Partapur, District Kanker
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34 (2) of Excise
Act.

2
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.06.2026 on the
basis of a secret information by the informant, the Police seized
20 litres of country made liquor and also Rs.200 cash from the
possession of the applicant, thereafter a case was registered
against the accused and he was arrested.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in crime in question. He
further submitted that the seized article does not belong to the
applicant. The applicant is in jail since 29.06.2026, he has no
criminal antecedents, charge sheet has been filed and trial is
likely to take quite long time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays
that the applicant be released on regular bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail
application of the applicant and submits that illicit liquor has been
seized from the shop of the applicant, as such he is not entitled
to be released on bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all the
documents available on record.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case, nature of allegation and further considering that the
applicant is in jail since 29.06.2026, he has no criminal
antecedents, charge sheet has already been filed and conclusion
of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, without

3
commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to
allow this application.
7. Accordingly, the instant bail application of the applicant is
allowed.
8. Let the Applicant – Mukesh Netam , involved in Crime
No.10/2026, registered at Police Station Partapur, District Kanker
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34 (2) of Excise
Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with
two 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 his counsel. In case of his absence,
without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed
against him/her under Section 269 of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail
during trial and in order to secure his/her 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 his/her, 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)

4
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/her in accordance with law.”
9. 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
Nirala