Absence of criminal history and filing of charge-sheet warrant grant of bail under Excise Act.

On January 20, 2026, acting on a secret tip, the Pakhanjur Police searched the applicant's shop and allegedly seized 20.00 bulk liters of illicit country-made Mahua liquor stored in two jerricans.

When the applicant failed to produce valid documentation under a Section 94 BNSS notice, he was arrested and charged under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The applicant has been in custody since January 20, 2026.

Following the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent court.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, given the nature of the offense and the duration of his pretrial detention.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the discretionary power of the High Court to grant regular bail.

Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, which carries a sentencing range of one to three years of imprisonment.

Procedural compliance and conditions for bail were regulated by Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for non-appearance, Section 84 of the BNSS regarding proclamations, and Section 351 of the BNSS concerning the recording of statements.

The Court analyzed the eligibility for bail by weighing the gravity of the allegations against the procedural status of the case.

It observed that the applicant had no prior criminal record, which mitigated the risk of recidivism.

The Court further noted that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had already been filed, meaning there was no immediate risk of tampering with evidence.

Considering that the trial’s conclusion would likely be delayed and the applicant had already served over two months in jail, the Court determined that further incarceration was not warranted.

To safeguard the judicial process, the Court integrated specific conditions into the bail order, linking the liberty of the applicant to his strict appearance and cooperation during the trial phases.

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant’s undertaking not to seek adjournments, his mandatory appearance at all trial dates (specifically for framing charges and recording statements), and the warning that any default would trigger proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS.

The trial court was instructed to treat any breach of these conditions as an abuse of liberty.