Acquittal in prior antecedents and prolonged incarceration justify regular bail despite repeat excise offenses.

The applicant, Nandkishore Verma, filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking regular bail.

He was arrested in connection with Crime No. 127/2025 involving the recovery of 3,888 bulk litres of illicit liquor from a co-accused's farm.

The applicant was implicated based on a memorandum statement of a co-accused while he was already in custody in Jagdalpur for a separate Excise Act case.

His first bail application (MCRC No. 7189 of 2025) was dismissed on October 10, 2025, due to three recorded criminal antecedents.

The applicant has been in custody since April 5, 2025.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the change in circumstances regarding his criminal antecedents and the duration of his incarceration.

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

It also considered Sections 34(2) and 59-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and Sections 111, 338, and 336(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The court balanced the gravity of the offence against the principle of the right to a speedy trial and the clarification of criminal history, specifically noting that an acquittal in a prior case constitutes a relevant factor in a subsequent bail plea.

The Court noted that while the previous bail was rejected due to three criminal antecedents, a material change in circumstances was established: the applicant had been acquitted in one of those cases, one was still pending, and the third was the present case.

The Court observed that the charge-sheet has already been filed, meaning the investigation is complete, and the applicant has already endured nearly eleven months of incarceration since April 5, 2025.

Finding that the trial's conclusion would likely take significant time, the Court reasoned that further detention was not warranted, provided strict conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's presence during trial and to prevent misuse of liberty.

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to several conditions: (i) an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments, (ii) mandatory presence on all hearing dates, and (iii) compliance with appearance requirements for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of BNSS.

The trial court was authorized to revoke bail in case of default.