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

The applicant, Sunil Kumar Kushwaha, was arrested on January 1, 2026, following a raid by the Excise Circle Pratapur, District Surajpur.

Based on secret informant data, the police seized 24.3 liters of foreign liquor from the applicant's possession.

Consequently, Crime No. 105/2026 was registered for offenses under Sections 34(1)(a), 34(2), 36, and 59(a) of the C.G. Excise Act.

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail, arguing that he had no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and the maximum punishment for the alleged offense is three years.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the quantity of liquor seized and the absence of criminal antecedents.

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

It referenced Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, noting the prescribed punishment ranges from a minimum of one year to a maximum of three years.

The Court also integrated procedural safeguards from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and BNSS, specifically Section 269 BNS (non-attendance), Section 84 BNSS (proclamation for person absconding), Section 209 BNS, and Section 351 BNSS (recording of statement of accused), to be applied as bail conditions.

The Court weighed the nature of the allegations against the applicant’s personal history and the procedural status of the case.

It noted that 24.3 liters of foreign liquor were seized, but highlighted that the applicant has no prior criminal record.

The Court observed that since the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant has been in custody since January 1, 2026, his further detention was not warranted, especially as the trial is likely to be protracted.

The Court reasoned that the statutory maximum sentence of three years, combined with the completion of the investigation, favored the exercise of judicial discretion in granting bail.

The holding was made subject to several conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during evidence, must appear on all trial dates, and must specifically be present for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of BNSS.

Failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty.