Bail granted on principle of parity and prolonged custody despite past criminal antecedents.

The applicant was arrested on April 5, 2025, following a police raid on his farmhouse in Village Karwari, where 3,888 bulk liters of illicit country-made liquor from Madhya Pradesh were seized.

The prosecution alleged the liquor was intended for illegal bottling and sale in Chhattisgarh.

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, after his first application (MCRC No. 7189/2025) was rejected on October 10, 2025, due to nine criminal antecedents.

An appeal to the Supreme Court against the first rejection was withdrawn on March 16, 2026.

The current application highlights that the applicant has since been acquitted or cases were disposed of in eight out of nine previous matters.

1. Whether the change in the status of the applicant's criminal antecedents and the duration of his pretrial detention constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of regular bail in a second application.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused persons who have already been granted relief.

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the grant of regular bail.

Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the C.G. Excise Act, noting that the punishment ranges from one to three years.

Sections 111, 338, 340(2), and 336(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Principle of parity in bail jurisprudence and the right to a timely trial under Article 21 principles.

The Court reviewed the fresh grounds presented in the second application, specifically the clarification of the applicant’s criminal record. While the first bail was denied due to nine pending cases, the applicant demonstrated that only one Excise Act case remains pending, with others resulting in acquittal or disposal.

The Court weighed the substantial quantity of seized liquor against the fact that the applicant had been in custody for over a year (since April 5, 2025) for an offense where the maximum sentence is three years.

The Court further noted that 14 other co-accused had been granted regular bail and one had received anticipatory bail from the Supreme Court. The Court determined that since the trial would take considerable time, continued detention was not warranted despite the previous rejection.

The holding established that the explanation of prior criminal antecedents and prolonged custody (over one year) outweighed the initial grounds for rejection.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to strict conditions including attending all court dates, not seeking unnecessary adjournments, and compliance with Sections 269 and 84 of the BNSS regarding presence and proclamations.