Allowed

Kamal Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Sept 2026MCRC/7172/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted regular bail to an applicant arrested for possession of 11.88 bulk liters of country-made liquor under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act. Considering the charge-sheet has been filed, only one criminal antecedent is pending, and the applicant has been in jail since July 8, 2026 with trial likely to take considerable time, the court released him on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety and imposed conditions regarding court attendance and non-seeking of adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like sum, subject to stated conditions.

Kamal Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.09.22 10:09:26 +0530

CGHC010302982026

2026:CGHC:40992

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MCRC No. 7172 of 2026

¶8

Kamal Singh S/o Gulab Satnami Aged About 45 Years R/o Gram Tiloda Ward No. 60, Police Station, Ranchirai, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S H O, Police Station Excise Circle Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Respondent

¶11

For Applicant : Shri Ankush Soni, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A.

¶12

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY)

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

21/09/2026

¶15

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. 63/2026 registered at Police Station Excise Circle Gunderdehi, District Balod (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act against the present applicant.

¶16

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that police of Police Station Excise Circle Gunderdehi, District Balod has seized 11.88 bulk liters of country made plain liquor wine from the possession of the present applicant.

¶17

¶18

Thereafter, the aforesaid case was registered against the present applicant.

¶19

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the said 11.88 bulk liters country made liquor wine was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant. It is further argued by him that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents under the Excise Act and under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years and the present applicant has been in jail since 08.07.2026, conclusion of the trial is likely to take some considerable time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.

¶20

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application and submit that there is one criminal antecedent relating to Excise Act pending against the applicant before the competent Court. He also submits that the applicant may abscond, therefore he is not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case.

¶21

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

¶22

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the quantity of liquor seized from the possession of the applicant, charge-sheet has been filed and that, there is only one criminal antecedent pending against the present applicant before the competent Court and he is in jail since 08.07.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some more time, without making any observation on

¶23

¶24

merits of the matter, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶25

7. Let the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶26

(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.

¶27

(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 his under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶28

(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 his, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶29

(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.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

¶32

Anjani

Kamal Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases