Chhattisgarh High Court
MCRCA/1459/2026 of DINESH KUMAR Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 6 September 2026
2026:CGHC:39264 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1459 of 2026 Dinesh Kumar S/o Ravishankar Dadsena Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Patparpali, Police Station Pithaura, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) (Particulars Of The Applicant Are Mentioned Correctly) ... Applicant
CGHC010326542026
2026:CGHC:39264
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1459 of 2026
Dinesh Kumar S/o Ravishankar Dadsena Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Patparpali, Police Station Pithaura, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) (Particulars Of The Applicant Are Mentioned Correctly) ... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Excise Circle Palari, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant
: Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate, and Ms. Swati R. Gupta, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
07.09.2026
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 application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 32/2026, registered at Police Station Excise Circle Palari, District – Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 34(2), 36 and 38(A)of the Excise Act.
2. Learned counsel for the State submits that the application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable in view of the specific bar contained under Section 59(A)(i). He further submits that, at the time of the raid conducted at the house of Murali Tandon (co-accused), the applicant was also present; however, he fled from the spot and has been absconding since then. He further submits that, as per the memorandum statement of co-accused Murali Tandon, the co- accused, along with the present applicant, is involved in the business of selling illicit liquor. He further submits that the applicant has one criminal antecedent in Crime No. 59 of 2025, registered at Excise Circle Pittora, District Mahasamund, for the offences punishable under Sections 34(1)(a) and 38(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been made accused only on the basis of the memorandum statement of the co-accused, Murali Tandon. He further submits that there is no other material available on record connecting the applicant with the alleged offence.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and the specific bar contained under Section 59(A)(i), this Court is of the view that the application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable.
6. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE vaibhav