Bail granted for Section 34(2) Excise Act offence citing lack of criminal antecedents and prolonged custody.

The applicant was arrested on January 10, 2026, following a police raid based on secret information.

The police seized 300 bulk liters of illicit liquor from an open area allegedly used by the applicant for manufacturing or sales.

The applicant was charged under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The applicant sought regular bail, arguing that the liquor was not in his exclusive possession, he had no criminal antecedents, and the trial would be prolonged.

The State opposed bail, noting that while the charge-sheet had been filed and the applicant had no prior record, the quantity of liquor was significant.

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

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

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

Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding non-appearance.

Section 84 of the BNSS regarding proclamations for absconding persons and Section 209 of the BNS regarding non-appearance in response to a proclamation.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations—the seizure of 300 liters of illicit liquor—against the mitigating factors presented by the applicant.

It noted that the applicant has been in custody since January 10, 2026, and that the charge-sheet has already been filed, reducing the risk of tampering with investigation materials.

Crucially, the Court observed that the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to be delayed.

Given that the maximum punishment for the offense is three years, the Court reasoned that further pretrial detention was unnecessary, provided strict conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's presence during trial.

The applicant is to be released upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to specific conditions: appearing at every hearing, not seeking unnecessary adjournments, and appearing specifically for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

Failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty.