Bail denied to habitual offender with multiple excise antecedents despite prolonged detention and filed charge sheet.

The applicant was arrested on 12.02.2026 following a police raid that resulted in the seizure of 27 bulk liters of Deshi Masala liquor found in the joint possession of the applicant and a co-accused on a motorcycle

The applicant filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), asserting false implication and the likelihood of a protracted trial

The State opposed the application, citing a charge sheet already filed and the applicant’s extensive history of 13 criminal antecedents, including 8 prior offenses under the Excise Act

1. Whether the applicant, a habitual offender with thirteen criminal antecedents, is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. for offenses under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act

Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act regarding the illicit possession of liquor

Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (2022) 8 SCC 559, which mandates that previous criminal antecedents are a critical factor in the cancellation or denial of bail, particularly when they indicate a habitual nature of offending

The Court weighed the applicant's period of detention since February 2026 against his significant criminal history

The Court observed that the applicant has thirteen pending cases, eight of which specifically involve the Excise Act

_Applying the logic from Deepak Yadav, the Court reasoned that the sheer volume of prior offenses characterizes the applicant as a "habitual offender"

Consequently, even though the charge sheet had been filed, the risk posed by the applicant's recidivist behavior outweighed the arguments for liberty based on the duration of custody or the likelihood of a delayed trial

The Court rejected the bail application, concluding that the case does not warrant the exercise of discretion for regular bail given the gravity of the antecedents. The application was accordingly dismissed