Bail granted for Excise Act offenses despite criminal history where charge-sheet is filed and trial is delayed.

On February 5, 2026, police in Bhatapara City intercepted an e-rickshaw carrying the applicants

A search resulted in the recovery of 41 paw of Deshi Masala liquor from Applicant No. 1 and 30 paw from Applicant No. 2, totaling 35.640 bulk liters of illicit country-made liquor

The applicants were arrested the same day and charged under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, the Juvenile Justice Act, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Applicant No. 1 has three criminal antecedents (two acquittals, one pending), while Applicant No. 2 has one pending antecedent under the Excise Act

Following the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed

Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering their period of incarceration and the nature of the evidence?

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail

Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, which prescribes a minimum of one year and a maximum of three years of imprisonment

Section 78 of the Juvenile Justice Act and Section 95 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

Sections 209, 269, and 351 of the BNSS/BNS regarding procedural compliance during bail

The Court weighed the gravity of the allegations against the fact that the investigation was complete and a charge-sheet had already been filed

It noted that the applicants had been in custody since February 5, 2026, and that the trial's conclusion would likely be delayed

Regarding criminal history, the Court observed that Applicant No. 1 had been acquitted in two of her three previous cases, and the pending cases for both applicants did not automatically disqualify them from bail given the circumstances

The Court determined that since the maximum punishment for the primary offense is three years, continued pre-trial detention was not warranted provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure trial participation

The holding was contingent upon several conditions: (i) an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory appearance on all trial dates personally or through counsel; and (iii) personal presence during specific trial milestones such as the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS

Failure to comply with these conditions permits the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of the liberty of bail