KARAN SINHA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010385402026 2026:CGHC:44918
NAFR

KUNAL
DEWANGAN
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally
signed by
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
MCRC No. 9339 of 2026
Karan Sinha S/o Shri Nanhu Sinha Aged About 20 Years R/o Village
Mudhipar Police Station Gatapar Tahsil Khairagarh District Khairagarh
Chhuikhadan Gandai C. G.
--- Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Of Police
Station Gatapar District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai C.G.
... Non-Applicant(s)
For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge
Order on Board
16/10/2026
1. The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of
regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.
38/2026 registered at Police Station Gatapar, District Khairagarh-
Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.), for the offence punishable under
Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 20.06.2026, acting upon

2
secret information received from an informant that the applicant
had kept country-made liquor for sale, the police conducted a raid
at the applicant’s shop and allegedly seized 8.100 bulk litres of
country-made liquor. On the basis of the said seizure, the aforesaid
offence was registered against the applicant and after completion
of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the
competent Court.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He
would further submit that the alleged liquor was seized from an
open place and not from the conscious and exclusive possession of
the applicant. He would also submit that the seizure witnesses
have already been examined before the learned trial Court and
have not supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that
the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant has been
in jail since 20.06.2026. So far as the criminal antecedents of the
applicant are concerned, he has three criminal antecedents, all
relating to offences under the Excise Act, out of which one case has
been disposed of and two cases are still pending consideration, as
disclosed in Part-D of the bail application. As the conclusion of the
trial is likely to take some time, the applicant may be released on
bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the prayer
for grant of bail and submit that, though the charge-sheet has been
filed before the competent Court but the applicant has three

3
criminal antecedents of similar nature, all under the Excise Act, out
of which one case has been disposed of and two cases are still
pending consideration. It is further submitted that the applicant is a
habitual offender and considering the quantity of liquor seized in the
present case and his criminal antecedents, he is not entitled to be
released on bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, nature
and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, quantity of
liquor allegedly seized from the applicant’s shop and particularly,
his criminal antecedents, it appears that the applicant has three
criminal antecedents of similar nature, all relating to offences under
the Excise Act. Out of the said cases, one has been disposed of,
whereas two cases are still pending consideration, as the same has
been explained in the bail application of part-D criminal
antecedents, it appears that the present applicant is a habitual
offender, further he has misused the bail granted to him earlier, and
also in light of the judgmen t rendered by the Hon’ble Court in
Deepak Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported
in (2022) 8 SCC 559 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had
cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground
that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is of the
opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular
bail.

4
7. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant under
Section 183 of the BNSS , involved in Crime No. 38/2026
registered at Police Station Gatapar, District Khairagarh-
Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.), for the offence punishable under
Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. , is rejected .
- S/- Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Kunal