Bail Granted for Possession of 60 Liters of Liquor Absent Prior Criminal Antecedents

The applicant, Rajesh Kumar Gond, was arrested on December 26, 2025, following a police raid by the Bilaigarh Police Station based on informant intelligence.

The police seized 60 liters of country-made liquor from the applicant’s possession.

A case was registered under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The applicant filed this First Bail Application seeking regular bail, contending that he had no prior criminal record, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and the trial would be prolonged.

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

1. 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 offense and the period of detention.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

It also considered Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, which prescribes a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum of three years for the unlawful possession of liquor.

Additionally, the court referenced procedural compliance under Sections 269, 84, 209, and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and BNSS regarding the consequences of violating bail conditions and non-appearance.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations against the fundamental principles of bail.

It noted that while 60 liters of liquor were seized, the applicant had no recorded criminal antecedents.

The Court observed that the charge-sheet had already been filed, meaning the investigation was complete and there was no immediate risk of tampering with evidence.

Furthermore, the Court factored in the applicant’s period of incarceration since late December 2025 and recognized that the trial's conclusion was not imminent.

Under these circumstances, the Court determined that continued pretrial detention was unnecessary, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's participation in the trial.

The holding answered the issue in the affirmative, granting relief based on the lack of criminal history and the duration of custody.

The Court imposed specific conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must attend every hearing unless excused, and must appear personally for framing of charges and recording of statements.

Failure to comply permits the trial court to initiate proceedings under Sections 269 and 209 of the BNS.