Absence of criminal antecedents and filing of charge-sheet justify grant of regular bail in excise-related offences.

The applicants (Ramwati, Arvind, and Arjun) were arrested in connection with Crime No. 146/2026 for the alleged possession of 150 liters of country Mahua liquor and 3200 Kgs of fermented raw Mahua flower, seized from the house of applicant No. 1.

They were charged under Sections 34(1)(A)(F), 34(2), and 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and have been in custody since January 12, 2026.

The applicants moved the High Court of Chhattisgarh for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), contending false implication and highlighting a lack of criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations, the duration of their incarceration, and the absence of criminal antecedents.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the grant of regular bail.

It further considered Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, noting that the prescribed punishment ranges from a minimum of one year to a maximum of three years.

Procedural compliance during bail was underscored by referencing Sections 84 (proclamation), 209 (failure to appear), 269 (non-appearance), and 351 (recording of statements) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and BNSS.

In determining the eligibility for bail, the Court weighed the gravity of the recovery—150 bulk liters of liquor—against several mitigating factors.

The Court observed that the applicants had no prior criminal record and had already been in custody for over two months.

It was further noted that the investigation was substantially complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed in the competent court.

Given that the maximum punishment for the offense is three years and the conclusion of the trial was expected to take considerable time, the Court reasoned that further detention was unnecessary.

The Court balanced the State's opposition regarding the involvement of all three applicants with the principle of liberty, provided stringent conditions were met to ensure their presence during trial.

The applicants were ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each, subject to conditions including: (i) no adjournments during witness presence; (ii) mandatory presence on all trial dates; and (iii) strict compliance with appearances for charge framing and statements under Section 351 of BNSS, with default potentially resulting in the cancellation of bail.