Allowed

Santosh Barik v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Sept 2026MCRC/7205/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court granting bail to an applicant accused of manufacturing illegal liquor under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act. The court held that due to the absence of criminal antecedents and potential delay in the trial, the applicant was entitled to release on bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Granted regular bail subject to execution of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and compliance with conditions of availability for interrogation and not interfering with witnesses.

Santosh Barik Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.09.15 14:07:15 +0530

CGHC010295002026

2026:CGHC:40182

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MCRC No. 7205 of 2026

¶8

Santosh Barik S/o Rakhi Kumar Barik Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Khusrupali, Tahsil And P.S. Basna District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Applicant

¶10

versus

¶11

 State Of Chhattisgarh	Through Station House Officer Police
Station Basna, District M	ahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant
For Applicant	: Ms. Gayatri Chouhan, Advocate
For Non-Applicant	: Mr. Sourabh Sahu, P.L.

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

15.09.2026

¶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. 368/2026 registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund, for the offence punishable under Section 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 Basna, District Mahasamund, has received a secret information from the informant and on the basis of said information, raid was

¶17

¶18

conducted and seized 30 liters of mahua liquor from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, the aforesaid case was registered against the present applicant.

¶19

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and the said 30 liters of mahua liquor was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant. It is further argued by her 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 10.07.2026, conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.

¶20

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, opposes the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case 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, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the present applicant and the fact that the present applicant has no criminal

¶23

¶24

antecedent under the Excise Act pending against him, moreover, the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and he is in jail since 10.07.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶25

7. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

¶26

(a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

¶27

(b)he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court; and

¶28

¶29

The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits.

¶30

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶31

A j i n k y a

Santosh Barik v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Barik 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