Chhattisgarh HC Grants Bail in Excise Case, Directs DGP to Act on Police Officer Who Filed False Criminal Antecedents
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha granted bail to two Punjab residents arrested for illicit liquor transport and ordered the DGP to reconsider action against an ASI who falsely attributed 19 criminal cases to one applicant.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur on 22 June 2026 granted regular bail to two applicants — Ranvir Singh and Jagdeep Singh, both residents of Taran Taaran district in Punjab — who had been in custody since 7 October 2025 in connection with the seizure of over 2,461 bulk litres of illicit liquor in Jashpur district. Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, sitting singly, allowed the bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The order carries a separate and pointed direction to the Director General of Police to reconsider the departmental action taken against ASI Manoj Bhagat, who had carelessly furnished information to the court attributing 19 criminal antecedents to Jagdeep Singh — antecedents that, on verification, did not exist.
The Seizure and the Charges
On 7 October 2025, acting on information received from the CID, the police of Police Station Jashpur intercepted a vehicle bearing registration number RJ-09-GE-0124. A search of the vehicle yielded 2,478 bottles of 750 ml, 1,332 bottles of 375 ml, and 576 bottles of 180 ml liquor — totalling 2,461.68 bulk litres — with an approximate value of Rs. 22,22,168. An FIR was registered as Crime No. 263/2025 at Police Station Jashpur for offences punishable under Sections 34(1) and 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. Both applicants were arrested the same day.
Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act carries a minimum sentence of one year and a maximum of three years. Counsel for the applicants, Mr. Anshul Tiwari, argued that the liquor was not seized from the exclusive possession of either applicant and that both had been falsely implicated. He pointed to the limited sentencing range and the fact that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon.
The State, represented by Government Advocate Mr. S.S. Baghel, opposed bail and confirmed that a charge-sheet had been filed before the competent court. The State's opposition, however, was complicated by a significant factual correction that had emerged in the preceding hearing.
The False Antecedents and the Court's Intervention
At the hearing on 15 June 2026, the State counsel had informed the court that Jagdeep Singh carried 19 criminal antecedents. Jagdeep Singh had filed an affidavit denying this. The court, finding the conflict unresolved, directed the concerned Superintendent of Police to file a personal affidavit verifying the position.
In compliance, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jashpur filed an affidavit before the 22 June hearing. The affidavit stated that after a search on the ICJS Portal, no previous criminal antecedents were found against either applicant. As for Ranvir Singh, information received from the State of Punjab disclosed one previous criminal antecedent. The affidavit further disclosed that ASI Manoj Bhagat, the Investigating Officer, had “carelessly prepared the information about the previous criminal antecedents” without bringing the matter to the notice of his superiors, and had sent that incorrect information directly to the Office of the Advocate General, Chhattisgarh.
The SSP's affidavit also stated that the police department had already taken action against ASI Bhagat: a fine of Rs. 500 and a warning that repetition would attract strict disciplinary action.
Chief Justice Sinha found that response wholly inadequate. The court observed that furnishing incorrect information before it — portraying a person as having multiple criminal antecedents when none existed — was very serious in nature. The Rs. 500 fine was described as “wholly inadequate and merely an eye-wash.”
Why the Court Granted Bail
On the bail question itself, the court weighed the nature and gravity of the allegations, the criminal antecedent position as clarified, the duration of custody, and the likely timeline for trial. Jagdeep Singh had no criminal antecedent at all. Ranvir Singh had one antecedent, registered in Punjab. Both had been in jail since 7 October 2025. The charge-sheet had been filed, but the trial's conclusion was expected to take considerable time. On these facts, the court concluded that both applicants were entitled to bail.
Directions to the Director General of Police
Beyond the bail order, Chief Justice Sinha issued a separate direction to the Director General of Police to reconsider the matter afresh against ASI Manoj Bhagat. The DGP was also directed to call for an explanation from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jashpur, as to how the SSP had treated the matter so lightly when it involved wrong information sent to the court. The State counsel was directed to communicate the order to the DGP forthwith for necessary information and compliance.
The matter was listed for compliance before the court on 8 July 2026. A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court concerned.
Outcome
The bail application in MCRC No. 10544 of 2025 was allowed. Ranvir Singh and Jagdeep Singh are to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial court. The bail is subject to four conditions: the applicants must file an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; they must remain present before the trial court on each fixed date, personally or through counsel; if a proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and they fail to appear, the trial court shall initiate proceedings under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; and they must appear in person on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. Deliberate or unjustified absence on those dates may be treated as abuse of the liberty of bail.