Dismissed

Govinda Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Sept 2026MCRC/7688/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the first bail application of Govinda Yadav, arrested for possession of 6.30 bulk litres of country-made liquor under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. The court noted the applicant's eight criminal antecedents, including three pending excise cases, and found an apprehension that he would re-offend if released on bail. The bail application was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; applicant to remain in custody.

Govinda Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010312012026

2026:CGHC:41026

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCRC No. 7688 of 2026

¶7

1 - Govinda Yadav S/o Chhunna Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Nayaganj Ward, Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara City, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Excise Circle Bhatapara, Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh --- Non-applicant

¶10

For Applicant	: Mr. Ayush Verma, Advocate
For Non-applicant	: Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, PL

¶11

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

21.09.2026

¶14

1) The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.42/2026 registered at Police Station-Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence under Section 34(2) & 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

¶15

¶16

2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that police of Police Station Balodabazar-Bhatapara has received a secret information from the informant and on the basis of said information, raid was conducted and seized 6.30 bulk liters of country-made liquor from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, the aforesaid case was registered against the present applicant.

¶17

3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and the alleged 6.30 bulk litres of country-made liquor was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant. With regard to the criminal antecedents, he would submit that three criminal cases under the Excise Act are pending, whereas four cases have been disposed of. He would contend that the criminal case under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code was disposed of way back in the year 2016-17. He would further contend that the applicant is in jail since 06.07.2026; the charge-sheet has already been filed; and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable period of time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.

¶18

4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court. She would contend that the applicant has a total of eight criminal antecedents and the cases under the Excise Act are still pending consideration. She would further contend that, if the applicant is granted bail, he may again indulge in the same offence; therefore, his application deserves to be rejected.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

6) Admittedly, 6.30 bulk litre of country-made liquor was seized from the exclusive possession of the present applicant but at the same time, the applicant has a history of 8 criminal antecedents.

¶22

7) Perusal of Part 4(D) of the application would reveal that 7 cases were registered against the applicant under the Excise Act, out of which 3 cases are still pending consideration. Considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant, there is an apprehension that, if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he may again indulge in the illegal transportation and sale of liquor. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶23

8) 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.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶26

Rekha

Govinda Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govinda Yadav 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