Chhattisgarh High Court
MCRC/9111/2026 of SAVITA SATNAMI Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 12 October 2026
2026:CGHC:44216 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9111 of 2026 1 - Savita Satnami W/o Jhangluram Satnami,. Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Khedapali, P.S. And Tehsil Chhal District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station
CGHC010381882026
2026:CGHC:44216
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9111 of 2026
1 - Savita Satnami W/o Jhangluram Satnami,. Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Khedapali, P.S. And Tehsil Chhal District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chhal District Raigarh. Chhattisgarh.
... Non-applicant
For Applicant
:
Mr. Kamlesh Pandey, Advocate
For Non-applicant :
Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board
13/10/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as she has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 156/2026, registered at Police Station Chhal, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) and 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the officers of Police Station concerned, received a secret information from the informant and on the basis of the said information conducted a raid and seized 30 bulk liters of country made liquor from the possession of the applicant, thereafter, Police has registered an aforesaid offence against the present applicant.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case and she is innocent. He would further submit that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel would further submit that the applicant is in jail since 12.07.2026 and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude; thus, he would pray that the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and submit that 30 bulk liters of country made liquor was seized from the possession of the present applicant, therefore, she is not entitled to grant of regular bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and considering the fact that quantity of liquor seized from the possession of the applicant; the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and further considering that the applicant is in jail since 12.07.2026, and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
7. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail, on following conditions :- (I) she 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,
(ii) she shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and
(iii) she shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits.
Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Jyoti