Sumit Panika Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 212/2025, registered at Police Station Khadgawan, District Manendragarh, Chirmiri Bharatpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2), 46 &

¶18

2

¶19

59 A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

¶20

2. It it is pertinent to mention here that the first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after filing of the charge-sheet vide order dated 01/12/2025 passed in MCRC No. 9776/2025.

¶21

3. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the Investigating Officer/Head Constable namely Jitendra Mishra was on the patrolling duty with staff and at that time he received a secret information about carrying the illegal liquor. Subsequently, he intercepted the offending vehicle being driven by the applicant and during search 225 bulk Liters of Goa Whisky English Wine were seized from the possession of the applicant. The applicant was immediately arrested.

¶22

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant was merely the driver of the offending vehicle and had no knowledge whatsoever regarding the transportation of liquor. Learned counsel further submits that in a similar case, wherein 243 litres of illicit liquor were seized, a Coordinate Bench of this Court granted bail to the applicant vide order dated 11.07.2024 passed in MCRC No. 4273/2024 . Learned counsel has also placed reliance on another order dated 12.03.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC No. 2019/2025 , wherein the applicant was granted bail despite seizure of 225 bulk litres of foreign liquor from his possession. It is further submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 05.10.2025 and has already

¶23

3

¶24

undergone a considerable period of pre-trial detention. The applicant has no criminal antecedents; the alleged offences are triable by the Magistrate and are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The applicant undertakes to cooperate with the trial. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the instant crime, therefore, the applicant prays for grant of regular bail.

¶25

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application. It is submitted that considering the quantity of illicit liquor seized from the possession of the applicant, he is not entitled to the benefit of bail.

¶26

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶27

7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the period of custody of the applicant since 05.10.2025, charge-sheet has been filed, the absence of any criminal antecedents, the fact that the alleged offences are triable by the Magistrate and are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and that the trial has not commenced, this Court is of the considered opinion that further custodial detention of the applicant is not warranted. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and subject to conditions, the second bail application is allowed.

¶28

8. Let applicant, Sumit Panika , involved in Crime No. 212/2025 registered at Police Station Khadgawan, District Manendragarh, Chirmiri Bharatpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2), 46 & 59 A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶29

4

¶30

(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.

¶31

(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 him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶32

(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.

¶33

(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.

¶34

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

¶35

Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶36

Rahul

Sumit Panika v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Panika v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Dubey Vs Krishna Kant Dubey, Alias K.K. Dubey (Died) Through Lrs.

Madhusudan Majumdar Vs Jagdish Sarkar

Singhal Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Subhashish Shaha

Bhuvneshwar Vs Fagulal

Lalit Ganvir Vs Central Bureau of Investigation CBI

Rameshvar Prasad Sahu Vs Smt. Kanti Bai Sahu