Bail Granted for Possession of 110 Liters of Liquor Absent Criminal Antecedents and Pending Trial

The applicant was arrested on June 28, 2025 (though noted as February 4, 2026, in Para 6), following a police raid by Sipat Police Station.

Based on secret informant information, the police seized 110 liters of Mahua liquor from the applicant’s possession.

Consequently, an offence was registered under Sections 34(A)(F) and 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act.

The applicant sought regular bail, contending false implication, lack of criminal antecedents, and the completion of the investigation as the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The State opposed the bail citing the significant quantity of liquor seized.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the offence and the period of incarceration.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

The substantive charges were under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, which prescribes a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum of three years.

The court referred to procedural compliance measures under Sections 269 (non-attendance), 84 (proclamation for person absconding), 209 (failure to appear), and 351 (recording of statement) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and BNSS to ensure the applicant's presence during trial.

The Court's reasoning centered on the balance between the gravity of the allegations and the rights of the accused during the trial process.

While the prosecution highlighted the seizure of 110 liters of liquor [para. 4], the Court noted that the applicant had no prior criminal record.

Key factors influencing the decision included the fact that the investigation was complete with the charge-sheet already filed, meaning there was no immediate risk of tampering with evidence.

Given that the maximum punishment for the offence is three years and the trial was expected to take considerable time, the Court determined that continued pretrial detention was not warranted.

The holding was contingent upon several conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear personally for framing of charges and recording of statements, and must comply with all trial court summons or face proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS.