BAIL GRANTED: Court considers period of detention and likely delay in trial.

The applicant, Baratram Yadav, filed their first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail after being arrested in connection with Crime No. 114/2025.

This case was registered at Police Station - Excise Circle Kasdol, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, for offenses under Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the C.G. Excise Act.

The prosecution alleges that on December 24, 2025, excise officers received secret information, conducted a search at Village Mugulbhatha, and seized 30 Bulk Liter of country-made mahua liquor, arresting the applicant based on suspicion.

The applicant contends they are innocent, falsely implicated, and were arrested merely on suspicion, with no evidence linking them to the seized liquor found in an open place near a cremation ground.

They further argue that several persons were present, yet only the applicant was arrested, and the measurement of the liquor was not properly conducted.

The investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has been filed, and the offense is triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class.

The applicant has no previous criminal conviction, and the trial is expected to take considerable time.

The State counsel opposes bail, stating that the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant, Baratram Yadav, should be granted regular bail given the allegations, the stage of the case, and their history.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the grant of regular bail.

Additionally, the court considered the nature and gravity of the offenses punishable under Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the C.G. Excise Act.

The court also implicitly relied on principles guiding bail decisions, including the length of time an accused has been in custody, the likelihood of trial taking considerable time, the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, and the applicant's potential to abscond or tamper with witnesses.

The court heard arguments from both the applicant's counsel and the State counsel.

While the State opposed bail citing the filing of the charge-sheet and two previous criminal antecedents of the applicant, the court found several factors favoring the grant of bail.

The court considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the fact that the charge-sheet had already been submitted, and the applicant had been in judicial custody since December 24, 2025.

Crucially, the court also noted that the conclusion of the trial was likely to take some time.

These considerations, combined with the applicant's counsel's arguments disputing the evidence and seeking regular bail, led the court to exercise its discretion in favor of granting bail despite the State's objections regarding previous antecedents.

The applicant is to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

The Court imposed several conditions, including that the applicant shall not seek adjournment when witnesses are present, shall remain present before the trial court on each fixed date, and shall appear in person for the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS.

Failure to comply with these conditions could result in the trial court treating it as an abuse of liberty of bail and proceeding against the applicant in accordance with the law.