JASVINDER SINGH @ RINKU BAGGAA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010332802026 2026:CGHC:38264-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2247 of 2026
Jasvinder Singh @ Rinku Baggaa S/o Late Shri Preetpall Singh Bagga
Aged About 48 Years Farmer / Agricultural Business, Resident Of Lal
Bagicha Ward No.3, Dhamtari, Thana City Kotwali, Tahsil And District
Dhamtari (C.G.)
MANPREET
KAUR
... Petitioner(s)
Digitally signed
by MANPREET
KAUR
Date: 2026.09.01
11:14:03 +0530
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station House, City Kotwali
Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Sr. Adv. Along with
Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sahu and Mr. Anmol
Varma, Advocates
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
31.08.2026
1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, learned Senior Advocate along
with Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sahu and Mr. Anmol Varma, learned counsel

2
for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned
Government Advocate for respondent / State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:
“ 1. May kindly be pleased to Quash the Dehati Nalishi
in Crime No. 00/2026, under Section 34(2) of the
Excise Act, registered at Police Station House City
Kotwali, Dhamtari; date of incident 30.4.2026; date of
report 1.5.2026 at 1.00 hours against the
petitioner/accused.
2. May kindly be pleased to Quash FIR No.
0117/2026, registered at Police Station Dhamtari,
under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise
(Amendment) Act, 2002, dated 1.5.2026, registered at
1.12 hours, against the petitioner/ accused.
3. May kindly be pleased to Quash the entire charge-
sheet filed against the petitioner/accused, dated
27.6.2026, in Criminal Case No. 2519/2026, State
versus Vivek Sahu and Vikas Bakshii, pending before
the learned CJM, Dhamtari.
4. May kindly be pleased to Quash the cognizance
taken by the learned CJM, Dhamtari on 27.6.2026
against the petitioner/accused in Criminal Case No.
2519/2026, State versus Vivek Sahu and Vikas
Bakshi.
5. May kindly be pleased to Quash the declaration of
the petitioner/accused as absconding, made on
27.6.2026 by the learned CJM, Dhamtari, in Criminal
Case No. 2519/2026, State versus Vivek Sahu and
Vikas Bakshi.

3
6. May kindly be pleased to Quash the issuance of the
warrant of arrest against the petitioner/accused,
issued on 27.6.2026, in the said case.
7. May kindly be pleased to Quash the entire
proceedings pending before the learned CJM,
Dhamtari in Criminal Case No. 2519/2026, State
versus Vivek Sahu and Vikas Bakshi., against the
petitioner/accused.
8. May kindly be pleased to grant Any other relief that
this Hon'ble Court may think deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly
be granted to the petitioner/accused in the interest of
justice. ”
3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 30.04.2026, on information
allegedly received by ASI Jamwant Deshmukh of Police Station City
Kotwali, Dhamtari regarding transportation of illicit beer on Scooty No.
CG-05-AE-9450, the police intercepted Vivek Sahu and Vikas Bakshi
near Laxmi Niwas Chowk and allegedly recovered 18 and 24 bottles of
Budweiser beer respectively from their possession. The petitioner,
Rinku Bagga @ Jasvinder Singh Bagga, was not present at the spot
and no seizure was effected from him, however, the co-accused
allegedly disclosed in their memoranda recorded under Section 23(2) of
the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 that the petitioner, proprietor of
Bagga Bar, had provided them money to purchase the liquor. FIR
No.117/2026 was accordingly registered on 01.05.2026 under Section
34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, and the two accused were
arrested and subsequently granted regular bail by this Court. After

4
investigation, including recording of witness statements, preparation of
spot maps and a Farari Panchnama concerning the petitioner, a charge-
sheet was filed on 27.06.2026 before the learned CJM, Dhamtari, in
Criminal Case No.2519/2026, State v. Vivek Sahu and Vikas Bakshi,
wherein cognizance was taken against the petitioner, he was shown as
absconding and a warrant of arrest was issued. Hence, the present
petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed seeking
quashing of the Dehati Nalishi, FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order,
declaration of the petitioner as absconding, warrant of arrest and the
entire proceedings pending against him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
innocent and has been falsely implicated owing to enmity on the basis
of allegedly concocted documents and an investigation conducted in
violation of mandatory provisions of law. It is contended that the
petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the alleged
memoranda of co-accused Vivek Sahu and Vikas Bakshi, which are
stated to be inadmissible in evidence, particularly when the chronology
reflected in the seizure memorandum, memorandum statements and
arrest memos allegedly demonstrates serious procedural irregularities,
inasmuch as the seizures were shown to have been effected prior to the
recording of the memorandum and formal arrest of the said accused
persons. It is further submitted that no contraband, vehicle or other
incriminating article was seized from the petitioner and there is no
allegation regarding his presence at the time of the alleged search and
seizure, nor has any documentary evidence, such as purchase bills,

5
receipts, money transactions or other material, been collected to
establish that the petitioner financed or instructed the co-accused to
procure the alleged beer. The non-production of the alleged
videography of the search and seizure is also relied upon to contend
that there is no material establishing that the co-accused named the
petitioner during the investigation. Learned counsel further submits that
the police failed to follow the mandatory safeguards relating to arrest,
communication of grounds of arrest and intimation to relatives, thereby
rendering the investigation fundamentally illegal. It is also contended
that the learned trial Court took cognizance on 27.06.2026 without
proper application of mind and subsequently declared the petitioner
absconding and issued a warrant of arrest without properly scrutinizing
the alleged Farari Panchnama and supporting material, particularly
when the witnesses to the said Panchnama were not cited as
prosecution witnesses and the petitioner possesses known immovable
property. On these grounds, it is submitted that the Dehati Nalishi, FIR,
charge-sheet, cognizance order, declaration of the petitioner as
absconding and consequential warrant of arrest are illegal and
constitute an abuse of the process of law, and therefore the entire
proceedings pending in Criminal Case No.2519/2026, before the
learned CJM, Dhamtari, insofar as they relate to the petitioner, deserve
to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further places reliance
upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan
Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal , Appeal (Cri.) No.1392 of 2007,
decided on 09.10.2007, to contend that the power under Section 482

6
CrPC is required to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of
Court and that non-bailable warrants, involving serious interference with
personal liberty, ought not to be issued mechanically and should be
resorted to only when the circumstances so warrant. Learned counsel
for the petitioner also places reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Aman Preet Singh v. C.B.I. through Director, 2021
SCC OnLine SC 941 , to submit that where custodial interrogation of an
accused is not required and the charge-sheet has already been filed,
there may be no justification for arrest merely because cognizance has
been taken or warrants have been issued, and appropriate protection
may be granted to enable the accused to appear before the Trial Court
and seek regular bail in accordance with law.
5. Learned State counsel, opposing the petition, would submit that
the petitioner has been charge-sheeted on the basis of material
collected during the course of investigation and that the allegations
regarding falsity, concoction of documents, inadmissibility of evidence
and procedural irregularities are matters requiring appreciation on the
basis of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings invoking
the extraordinary jurisdiction for quashing. It is submitted that the
alleged memorandum, seizures and other documents form part of the
investigation and their evidentiary value can appropriately be examined
by the competent Court during the course of trial. Learned State
counsel would further submit that mere absence of recovery from the
petitioner is not by itself sufficient to exonerate him when the
prosecution case is based upon the overall material collected during

7
investigation. The orders taking cognizance and issuing consequential
process, including the warrant, are stated to have been passed in
accordance with law, and no exceptional circumstance is made out
warranting interference with the pending criminal proceedings. It is,
therefore, submitted that the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to
be dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents appended with the petition.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
the material available on record, this Court finds that the principal
contention of the petitioner, insofar as it relates to the legality of the
Dehati Nalishi, FIR, charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance, is
founded upon disputed questions of fact concerning the manner of
investigation, admissibility and evidentiary value of the memorandum
statements of the co-accused, alleged procedural irregularities in the
seizure and arrest proceedings and the sufficiency of material collected
during investigation. Such questions cannot appropriately be
adjudicated in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of
the BNSS, 2023. At this stage, this Court is not required to conduct a
meticulous examination of the evidence or determine its admissibility
and reliability, which are matters to be considered by the competent
Court at the appropriate stage in accordance with law. Consequently, no
case is made out for quashing the FIR, charge-sheet, order taking
cognizance or the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner.
8. However, so far as the consequential order declaring the

8
petitioner absconding and issuance of warrant of arrest against him are
concerned, this Court finds it appropriate, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, to grant the petitioner an opportunity to
submit himself to the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. The object of
issuance of coercive process is to secure the presence of an accused
before the Court and not to operate as a punitive measure. The
petitioner has approached this Court and expressed his willingness to
appear before the jurisdictional Court. Therefore, without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the allegations and without interfering with
the order taking cognizance or any other proceedings against the
petitioner, the coercive process issued against him deserves to be
suitably modified.
9. Accordingly, the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner
pursuant to the order dated 27.06.2026 is hereby quashed. The
petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dhamtari, within a period of two weeks from today and,
upon his appearance, he shall be at liberty to avail such remedies,
including the remedy of applying for bail, as may be available to him
under law. The learned Court concerned shall thereafter proceed with
the matter strictly in accordance with law.
10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the prosecution case and the observations made herein
shall not influence the learned Trial Court while dealing with the case.
11. Consequently, the petition stands disposed of . The prayer for
quashing the Dehati Nalishi, FIR, charge-sheet, order taking cognizance

9
and the criminal proceedings is rejected, whereas the prayer relating to
the warrant of arrest is allowed to the extent indicated herein
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Manpreet