Chhattisgarh High Court

MCRC/9016/2026 of OM TEJESHWAR Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 14 October 2026

Cites 1, Cited by 0

2026:CGHC:44654 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9016 of 2026 1 - Om Tejeshwar S/o Kamlesh Mishra, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Birendranagar, Police Station - Sahaspurlphara, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh

CGHC010360272026

2026:CGHC:44654

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MCRC No. 9016 of 2026

1 - Om Tejeshwar S/o Kamlesh Mishra, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Birendranagar, Police Station - Sahaspurlphara, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through-Station House Officer, Police Station - Sahaspurlohara, District - Kabirdham (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Applicant

: Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate

For Non-applicant

: Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 15.10.2026

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

1

Decisions referred to

In this index

1

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

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.118/2026 registered at Police Station Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. NIRMALA RAO

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the police of Police Station Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.), received information from the informant and, on the basis of the said information, conducted a raid and seized 6,300 bulk litres of liquor from the possession of the present applicant. Thereafter, the police registered the aforesaid offence against the present applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of his memorandum statement and mere suspicion on the part of the police authorities. He would further submit that the applicant has four criminal antecedents, out of which one is of a similar nature, registered in the year 2024, while the remaining three are registered under the BNS in the years 2025 and 2026. He would also contend that the applicant has been in jail since 29.8.2026 and that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. He would, therefore, pray for grant of bail to the applicant.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application and submit that the applicant has four criminal antecedents, one of which is of a similar nature, registered in the years 2024, 2025 and 2026, indicating that he is a habitual offender. He would, therefore, submit that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

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

6. In the present bail application, the applicant has disclosed four criminal antecedents, one of which is of a similar nature. Nonetheless, the primary objectives of examining an accused person's criminal antecedents during bail proceedings are as follows:  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 4 pending criminal antecedents underscores a persistent pattern of offending, raising a grave apprehension of offense repetition if he is enlarged on bail.

7. 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.

8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead