SUKHDEV KASHYAP vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010289762026 2026:CGHC:38389
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
SINGH
Date:
2026.09.01
11:31:09
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
VAIBHAV
SINGH
MCRC No. 6929 of 2026
Sukhdev Kashyap Son Of Kanhaiya Kashyap, Aged About 27 Years
Resident Of Village - Hiragarh (Turi) Police Station Nawagarh, Tehsil -
Nawagarh, District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant

versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Janjgir, District Janjgir -
Champa (C.G.) ...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer.
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.
199/2026 registered at Police Station – Nawagarh, District Janjgir -
Champa (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 34(2) of
the Excise Act.

2
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04.07.2026, the police
officials of Police Station Nawagarh received information through an
informant regarding illegal possession of country-made liquor. Acting
upon the said information, the police reached the spot and conducted
a search, during which 06 bulk litres of country-made liquor were
allegedly recovered from the possession of the present applicant. The
seized liquor was taken into police custody in accordance with the
prescribed procedure. On the basis of the said recovery, the offence
as mentioned above was registered against the present applicant, and
he was thereafter arrested.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has
been made an accused merely on the basis of suspicion. It is further
submitted that the applicant has neither committed nor participated in
any act constituting the alleged offences and that the evidence
collected by the prosecution is not prima facie sufficient to establish
her involvement in the aforesaid offences. Learned counsel further
submits that a false seizure memo has been prepared by the police
with an intention to falsely implicate the applicant in the present case,
and the applicant is hopeful of being acquitted of the alleged offences.
It is also submitted that the applicant is in jail since 04.07.2026,
therefore, the applicant prays that he may kindly be released on
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.

3
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, the
period of detention, as the applicant has been in judicial custody since
04.07.2026, the fact that 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 – Sukhdev Kashyap, involved in Crime No.
199/2026 registered at Police Station – Nawagarh District Janjgir -
Champa (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 34(2) of
the 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
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

4
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