Pradip Patel @ Rahul Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:23536

¶3

Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.06.02 15:11:13 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

MCRC No. 2975 of 2026

¶7

1. Pradip Patel @ Rahul S/o Shri Ramkripal Patel Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Bans Urkuli, Thana And Tahsil- Bilaigarh Distt.- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.)

¶8

2. Suresh Das @ Jhabri S/o Shri Chintadas Aged About 23 Years R/o VillageBans Urkuli, Thana And Tahsil- Bilaigarh Distt.- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.)

¶9

... Applicant(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Of Police StationBilaigarh Distt.- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.)

¶12

		... Respondent(s)
For Applicants	:	Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate
For Non-applicant/State	:	Mr. RishirajPithawa, Dy. G.A.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board

¶14

02.06.2026

¶15

1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 19/2026, registered at Police Station Bilaigarh, district Sarangarh Bilaigarh C.G. for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act.

¶16

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.01.2026 the Police

¶17

2

¶18

Station Bilaigarh Dist. Sarangarh Bilaigarh C.G. received an information from the informant and on the basis of the said information seized total 90 bulk liters of country made Mahua liquor from open space. Thereafter, Police has registered an offence punishable under Sections Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act against the present applicant.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that there is no criminal antecedents against the applicants and the mahua liquor has been seized from open place. He further submits that the offence alleged under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act carries a minimum sentence of one year and a maximum sentence of three years. The applicants have been in judicial custody since 03.03.2026, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, he prays that the applicants be enlarged on bail.

¶20

4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that 92 bulk litres of country made mahua liquor was recovered, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail.

¶21

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the casediary.

¶22

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicants, and considering the fact that the seizure was effected from an open

¶23

3

¶24

space and not from the exclusive possession of the applicants, coupled with the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and that the applicants are in judicial custody since 03.03.2026, while the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicants.

¶25

7. Let the applicants, Pradip Patel @ Rahul and Suresh Das @ Jhabri , involved in Crime No. 19/2026, registered at Police Station Bilaigarh, Dist. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh C.G. for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶26

(i) The applicants 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.

¶27

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶28

(iii) In case, the applicants 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

¶29

4

¶30

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.

¶31

(iv) The applicants 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 applicants 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 againsts him in accordance with law.

¶32

8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶35

Jyoti

Pradip Patel @ Rahul v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradip Patel @ Rahul v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rukhman Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jagjivan Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Kumar Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramdhar Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amit Kumar Tiwari, Vs Smt. Sonam Tiwari

Atul Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh