Dismissed

Purushottam Chouhan v. State of C.G.

Chhattisgarh HC14 Sept 2026MCRC/8521/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bail applicant arrested for procuring or selling foreign liquor under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act filed a prayer for regular bail. The High Court rejected the application, holding the applicant a habitual offender due to unsatisfied antecedents and the gravity of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; order dismissed.

Purushottam Chouhan Vs State of C.G. — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.09.15 17:12:58 +0530

CGHC010356092026

2026:CGHC:40179

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MCRC No. 8521 of 2026

¶8

Purushottam Chouhan S/o Tejram Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Jamgawan, Police Station And Tehsil- Darima DistrictSurguja (C.G.)

¶9

... Applicant

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of C.G. Through Excise Sub- Inspector District- Label Flying Squad, Ambikapur, Excise Department Circle - Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶12

	... Non-applicant
For Applicant	: Mr. SapnomoyChattopadhyay, Advocate
For Non-applicant	: Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, P.L.

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

15.09.2026

¶16

1) The applicant has preferred this First 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.14/2026, registered by District Level Flying Squad, Ambikapur, Excise Department Circle- Ambikapur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(1)(a), 34(2) and 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

¶17

¶18

2) The prosecution story in brief, is that on 28.03.2025, Excise SubInspector, District Level Flying Squad, Ambikapur received secret information from the informant and on the basis of said information, the Flying Squad conducted raid and seized 20.540 liters of foreign liquor from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, the crime has been registered against the present applicant.

¶19

3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. He further submit that under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years and the applicant is in jail since 22.07.2026 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail.

¶20

4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the quantity of liquor seized from the possession of the applicant i.e . 20.540 bulk liters of foreign liquor. He further submits that the applicant has seven criminal antecedents, which have not been explained by the counsel for the applicant in para No.4(a) of the bail application, as such he is a habitual offender. Hence, he is not

¶21

¶22

entitled for grant of bail.

¶23

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

¶24

6) Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that in the present case charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the quantity of liquor seized from the possession of the applicant i.e. 20.540 bulk liters of liquor, so far as the criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, the applicant has seven criminal antecedents, which have not been explained by the counsel for the applicant in para No.4(a) of the bail application and as such, it appears that the present applicant is a habitual offender.

¶25

7) In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant is rejected .

¶26

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

¶27

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶28

A j i n k y a

Purushottam Chouhan v. State of C.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purushottam Chouhan v. State of C.G.

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