Bail Granted for Possession of 25 Liters of Liquor Absent Criminal Antecedents and Pending Trial

The applicant, Anandram Rawat, was arrested on February 26, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 24/2026 at Police Station Khallari

Following a secret tip, police conducted a raid and seized 25 bulk liters of illegal country-made plain liquor from the applicant's possession

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Although no representation appeared for the applicant during the hearing, the Court proceeded with the assistance of the State Counsel

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering the quantity of liquor seized and his lack of criminal history.

Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, which governs the illegal possession and sale of liquor

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the power of the High Court to grant bail

The Court also referenced provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Section 269 regarding non-attendance in obedience to an order from a public servant and Section 209 regarding failure to appear in response to a proclamation, as conditions for the continued liberty of the bail

The Court evaluated the merits of the bail application by weighing the nature and gravity of the allegations against the specific circumstances of the applicant

Key factors favoring the applicant included the fact that he had no prior criminal antecedents and that the investigation was substantially complete, as the charge-sheet had already been filed before the competent court

The Court noted the quantity seized (25 bulk liters) and the period of incarceration already undergone since February 2026

Given that the trial was expected to take considerable time, the Court determined that continued detention was unnecessary, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant’s presence during trial and to prevent the abuse of liberty

The holding is conditioned upon the applicant’s regular appearance before the trial court, a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments, and compliance with Sections 209, 269, and 351 of the BNSS/BNS regarding procedural presence. The court directed the trial court to treat any default in these conditions as an abuse of liberty