DILIP KUMAR GAIKWAD vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010262602026 2026:CGHC:38675
NAFR
VAIBHAV
SINGH
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV SINGH
Date: 2026.09.01
16:07:03 +0530
MCRC No. 6258 of 2026
Dilip Kumar Gaikwad S/o- Babulal Gaikwad (Wrongly Mentioned As
Gayakward) Aged About 39 Years (Complete Name Not Mentioned) R/o-
Village Nardha, Police Station Jamul, Tehsil And District-Durg (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate Durg, District- Durg
(C.G.) ...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Roshan Singh Lamba, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
01.09.2026
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.
445/2026 registered at Police Station – Jamul District - Durg (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 27.06.2026, during town
patrolling, police personnel namely Kesendra Singh Chauhan
received secret information to the effect that a person residing at
Village Nardha was illegally selling liquor from his house. Acting upon
the said information, the police reached the house of the applicant and
conducted a raid, during which the applicant was allegedly found in
possession of 8.100 bulk litres of country-made liquor, which was
seized from his possession. The police also seized a sum of
Rs.2,200/- from the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant was taken into
custody and formally arrested, and the seized liquor was taken into
possession for the purpose of investigation. Accordingly, the aforesaid
offence was registered against the applicant and investigation was
commenced.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the
police personnel due to previous enmity. It is further submitted that the
alleged liquor was not seized from the exclusive possession of the
applicant, but from the house where other persons are also residing,
and therefore, the alleged recovery cannot be attributed exclusively to
the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is the
sole bread earner of his family and his continued incarceration would
cause serious hardship to his family. It is also submitted that the
charge-sheet has not yet been filed and the trial is likely to take
considerable time for its conclusion. Learned counsel submits that the
applicant is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be
imposed by this Hon’ble Court and prays that he may kindly be
enlarged on bail. Any other ground shall be urged at the time of

3
hearing.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application
of the present applicant and submits that the applicant has five
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 28.06.2026, 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 – Dilip Kumar Gaikwad, involved in Crime No.
445/2026 registered at Police Station – Jamul District - Durg (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 she 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 her 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