BHAGWAT PRASAD KOSHLEY vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010336532026 2026:CGHC:38820

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8066 of 2026
Bhagwat Prasad Koshley S/o Ram Khilawan Aged About 38 Years R/o
Village Parsada, Ward No. 05, P.S. And Tehsil Bilha, District- Bilaspur
(C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Sargaon, District Mungeli
(C.G.)
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
02.09.2026
1. This is the Third Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the
BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been
arrested in connection with Crime No. 78/2026 registered at Police
Station Sargaon, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable
under Sections 34(2) & 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.
2. The earlier bail applications of the applicant being MCRC Nos.
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
4953/2026 and 7011/2026 were rejected by this Court vide orders
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
dated 09.07.2026 and 03.08.2026 respectively as the applicant has

2
total five more criminal antecedents out of which four cases are
under the Excise Act, with liberty to proceed and conclude the trial
expeditiously.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.04.2026, upon
receiving secret information regarding illegal transportation of
liquor, the police intercepted the applicant and co-accused Pamlesh
Bhaskar, who were allegedly travelling on a three-wheeler Honda
Activa. During the course of search, approximately 5.400 bulk litres
of country-made liquor were allegedly seized from the possession of
the applicant, whereas approximately 6.300 bulk litres of country-
made and foreign liquor were allegedly seized from the possession
of co-accused Pamlesh Bhaskar. Accordingly, the applicant and the
co-accused were apprehended and the offence was registered
against them under the relevant provisions of law.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present
application is the third bail application preferred by the applicant
and his earlier bail applications were rejected by this Court vide
orders dated 09.07.2026 and 03.08.2026 passed in MCRC Nos.
4953 of 2026 and 7011 of 2026, respectively, on account of his
criminal antecedents of similar nature, with liberty to approach the
Court again and with a direction to proceed with and conclude the
trial expeditiously. It is further submitted that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He
further submits that the applicant is a permanently disabled person
and has been in jail since 23.04.2026, and a copy of his permanent

3
disability certificate has been placed on record. It is further
submitted that out of nine prosecution witnesses, only two
witnesses have so far been examined, both of whom are seizure
witnesses and have supported the prosecution case, and therefore
the trial is likely to take considerable time. He further submits that
the alleged offences are triable by the learned Magistrate and are
not punishable with imprisonment for life or death. On these
grounds, particularly the applicant’s physical disability, prolonged
period of custody and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the
trial, he prays that the applicant may kindly be enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for
bail and submits that the present application is the third bail
application preferred by the applicant and that his earlier bail
applications were rejected by this Court vide orders dated
09.07.2026 and 03.08.2026 in MCRC Nos. 4953 of 2026 and 7011
of 2026, respectively, primarily on account of his criminal
antecedents of similar nature. It is further submitted that even as on
date, two criminal cases under the Excise Act are pending against
the applicant, which demonstrate his repeated involvement in
offences relating to illegal possession and transportation of liquor.
He further submits that the applicant was allegedly found in
possession of 5.400 bulk litres of country-made liquor, while 6.300
bulk litres of country-made and foreign liquor were seized from co-
accused Pamlesh Bhaskar, who was apprehended along with the
applicant. The alleged disability of the applicant also does not
diminish the seriousness of the allegations or his previous

4
involvement in similar offences. Hence, considering the repeated
involvement of the applicant in similar offences, pendency of two
criminal cases under the Excise Act and the fact that this is his third
bail application, he prays for rejection of the bail application.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary.
7. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the present
application is the third bail application preferred by the applicant
and his earlier bail applications were rejected by this Court vide
orders dated 09.07.2026 and 03.08.2026 passed in MCRC Nos.
4953 of 2026 and 7011 of 2026, respectively, primarily on account
of his criminal antecedents of similar nature. It further transpires that
even after rejection of the earlier bail applications, two criminal
cases under the Excise Act are still pending against the applicant,
which prima facie indicates his repeated involvement in such
offences. It is also not in dispute that out of nine prosecution
witnesses, two seizure witnesses have already been examined and
have supported the prosecution case. Though the applicant has
pleaded that he is a permanently disabled person and has remained
in jail since 23.04.2026 and that the alleged offences are triable by
the Magistrate, considering the nature of the allegations, the
recovery effected from his possession, his repeated involvement in
similar offences, the pendency of two other criminal cases under the
Excise Act and the fact that this is his third bail application after
rejection of the earlier applications, this Court is not inclined to

5
exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. The grounds urged
by the applicant do not constitute any substantial change in
circumstances warranting reconsideration of the prayer for bail, and
also in light of the judgment 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. Hence, this Court is of the
opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular
bail.
8. Accordingly, the third bail application of the applicant – Bhagwat
Prasad Koshley, involved in Crime No. 78/2026 registered at
Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence
punishable under Sections 34(2) & 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise
Act, is rejected.
9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to
proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.
10. 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
Rahul Dewangan