Allowed

Biruram Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Sept 2026MCRC/8574/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a bail application under Section 483 BNSS for two applicants arrested for violating Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act. The court considered the gravity of the offence, the chilling of the trial, and the antecedents of the applicants in granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail after executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with conditions to appear for interrogation and not interfere with witnesses.

Biruram Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Landlord and Tenant | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

CGHC010352422026 2026:CGHC:40168

¶3

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.09.15 14:07:17 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCRC No. 8574 of 2026

¶7

1. Biruram Yadav S/o C.J. / Sijelal Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Bhatgaon, Police Station And Tehsil Komakhan, DistrictMahasamund (C.G.)

¶8

2. Lalit Kumar Nayak S/o Asharam Nayak Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Bhatgaon, Police Station And Tehsil Komakhan, DistrictMahasamund (C.G.)

¶9

... Applicants

¶10

versus

¶11

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Komakhan, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant

¶12

For Applicants : Mr. Arpit Parakh, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, P.L.

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

15.09.2026

¶16

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 applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 111/2026 registered at Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act against the present

¶17

¶18

applicants.

¶19

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that police of Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund (C.G.), has received a secret information from the informant and on the basis of said information, raid was conducted and seized 18 liters of mahua liquor in 90 plastic pouches from the possession of the present applicants. Thereafter, the aforesaid case was registered against the present applicants.

¶20

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and the said 18 liters of mahua liquor was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicants. It is further argued by him that the applicant – Biruram Yadav has one criminal antecedent 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 applicants have been in jail since 28.07.2026, conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants.

¶21

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 applicants may abscond, therefore they are not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case.

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the present applicants and the fact that the applicant – Biruram Yadav has two criminal antecedents under the Section 34(2) of Excise Act and Sections 379, 447 and 34 of IPC where he has been acquitted whereas applicant – Lalit Kumar Nayak has no criminal antecedent, moreover, the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and applicants are in jail since 28.07.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(b)they 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

¶30

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.

¶31

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶32

A j i n k y a

Biruram Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biruram 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases