Absence of criminal antecedents and filing of charge-sheet justify bail in substantial illicit liquor recovery cases.

On January 3, 2026, police conducted a search at the residence of the applicants in Village Baglota based on informant tips.

They seized a total of 111.750 bulk litres of illicit Mahua liquor from a shed located behind the house.

Specifically, 66 bulk litres were seized from applicant No. 1 (Nandbai Navratna) and 45.700 bulk litres from applicant No. 2 (Rohini Bai Navratna).

The applicants were arrested on the same day and charged under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

A charge-sheet has since been filed, and the applicants have been in custody for approximately two and a half months at the time of the order.

Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the quantity of liquor seized and their duration of incarceration.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant regular bail.

It considered the sentencing parameters of Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, noting a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum of three years.

To ensure trial compliance, the court invoked conditions aligned with Section 269 of the BNSS (regarding attendance), Section 84 of the BNSS (proclamation for absconding persons), Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (punishment for non-appearance), and Section 351 of the BNSS (recording of accused statements).

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offense against the procedural status and the personal history of the applicants.

While acknowledging the substantial quantity of liquor seized (111.750 litres), the Court noted that the investigation was largely complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Significant weight was given to the fact that the applicants had no prior criminal antecedents.

The Court reasoned that since the maximum possible sentence is three years and the applicants had been in jail since early January 2026, continued detention was unnecessary as the trial was expected to take considerable time.

The Court balanced the State's opposition regarding the quantity of liquor with the fundamental principle of liberty where no previous history of crime exists.

The holding was predicated on the applicants' clean criminal record and the completion of the charge-sheet.

The release was made subject to the applicants furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each.

Specific directions were issued mandating their presence at every stage of the trial—specifically for the opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of statements—and prohibited seeking unnecessary adjournments.

Violation of these conditions would empower the trial court to initiate proceedings for the abuse of bail liberty.