Bail granted under Chhattisgarh Excise Act following charge-sheet filing and extended pre-trial detention.

The applicant, Tajeshwar Tandon, was arrested on December 28, 2025, following a police raid based on secret information regarding the illegal sale of Mahua liquor

The prosecution alleged that 30 litres of country-made Mahua liquor were recovered from the applicant’s possession near Suarmal Pahad, and he failed to produce a valid license

Consequently, Crime No. 171/2025 was registered under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act

The applicant moved this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending that he was falsely implicated, there were no independent witnesses, and that as the trial would be lengthy, continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, given the period of his incarceration and the filing of the charge-sheet

The court primarily applied Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, which penalizes the illegal possession or sale of liquor in quantities exceeding the prescribed limit

Procedurally, the court invoked Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the powers of the High Court or Court of Session regarding bail

The court also incorporated conditions referencing Section 269 (non-appearance) and Section 209 (failure to appear after proclamation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Section 84 (proclamation for person absconding) and Section 351 (recording of statement) of the BNSS

The Court observed that the applicant had been in judicial custody since December 28, 2025, and that the investigation was effectively concluded as the charge-sheet had already been filed before the competent court

In exercising its discretion, the Court weighed the gravity of the offence against the procedural status of the case, noting that the conclusion of the trial would likely take a considerable amount of time

The Court found merit in the applicant’s submission that continued detention during the trial’s pendency was unwarranted, especially since he is a permanent resident with no identified risk of absconding

Consequently, the Court determined that the facts and circumstances favored the applicant’s release on bail, provided strict conditions were imposed to ensure his participation in the trial

The holding established that the applicant was entitled to bail due to his prolonged custody and the completion of the investigation

The relief was granted subject to specific conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear personally for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS, and faces proceedings under the BNS/BNSS if he defaults or misuses the liberty of bail