Absence of criminal antecedents and charge-sheet filing warrant regular bail for excise law offenses.

On January 9, 2026, acting on secret information, police conducted a search and allegedly seized 48 liters of Mahua liquor and 400 kilograms of Mahua Lahan from the joint possession of the applicants.

The applicants were arrested the same day and charged under Sections 34(1)(क)(च), 34(2), and 59(क) of the C.G. Excise Act in connection with Crime No. 272/2026.

The applicants moved for regular bail, contending they were falsely implicated, the seizure occurred in an open place rather than from their direct possession, and that they had no prior criminal history.

The State opposed the application, emphasizing the quantity of liquor and Lahan seized.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the filing of the charge-sheet and their lack of criminal antecedents.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the power of the High Court to grant bail.

It considered the penal provisions of Sections 34(1)(क)(च), 34(2), and 59(क) of the C.G. Excise Act, noting that Section 34(2) carries a punishment range of one to three years.

Additionally, the Court integrated procedural mandates from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Sections 84 (proclamation), 209 (failure to appear), 269 (non-attendance), and 351 (recording of statements), to frame the conditions for the release.

The Court grounded its reasoning on the principle of balancing the gravity of the offense with the rights of the accused during a prolonged trial.

It noted that the investigation was effectively complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed before the competent court.

Despite the State's objection regarding the quantity of the seizure, the Court prioritized the fact that the applicants had no prior criminal record and had been in custody since January 9, 2026.

Reasoning that the conclusion of the trial would likely take considerable time, the Court found that continued incarceration was not warranted.

To mitigate the risk of trial delays, the Court imposed rigorous conditions, including a prohibition on seeking adjournments when witnesses are present and a mandate for personal appearance during key stages of the trial.

The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail given the filing of the charge-sheet and the absence of criminal antecedents.

The release is contingent upon several conditions, including the filing of an undertaking to not seek adjournments and mandatory appearance for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

Any violation of these conditions or misuse of liberty allows the trial court to proceed with the cancellation of bail or initiate proceedings under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.