Vijay Dhruw vs State Of Chhattisgarh

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. 316/2026 registered at Police Station Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that police received a secret information from the informant and on the basis of said information, raid was conducted and seized 5.4 bulk liters of liquor from possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, aforesaid offence was registered against the present applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has falsely been implicated in this case and the said 5.4 bulk liters of liquor was not seized from exclusive possession of the applicant. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 01.08.2026, charge-sheet has been filed and trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. He would further submit that the present applicant has a total of six criminal antecedents, out of which three cases have already been disposed of, and the remaining three cases are pending consideration. He would pray for grant of bail to the present applicant.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application and submit that the applicant has 03 live criminal antecedents under the Excise Act and total 06 previous antecedents, which shows that the applicant is a habitual offender, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case.

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

In the present bail application, the applicant has disclosed 04 criminal antecedents of similar nature. Nonetheless, the primary objectives of examining an accused person's criminal antecedents during bail proceedings are:

 To assess the likelihood of compliance with bail conditions and ensure the accused will not flee or jump bail;

 To determine whether there is a habitual pattern of committing similar or grave offenses; and

 To evaluate the risk of evidence tampering, obstruction of the ongoing investigation, or witness intimidation.

The existence of 03 pending criminal antecedents of an identical nature and total 06 criminal antecedents underscores a persistent pattern of offending, raising a grave apprehension of offense repetition if he is enlarged on bail.

Also in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous antecedents, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, the instant bail application is hereby rejected.