Bail granted under Section 34(2) Chhattisgarh Excise Act due to lack of criminal antecedents and prolonged custody.

The applicant, Tejram Yadav, filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

On February 6, 2026, police acting on an informant's tip apprehended a co-accused, Prashant Nahak, in possession of 20 bulk liters of country-made liquor.

A memorandum statement by the co-accused alleged that the applicant was present at the scene but fled.

The applicant was arrested on February 26, 2026, for offenses under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated and that no recovery was made from his exclusive possession.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the nature of the allegations, his lack of criminal antecedents, and the duration of his pretrial detention.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) regarding the grant of regular bail.

Substantively, the case involved Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, which provides for a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum of three years for illegal possession/sale of liquor.

The court also referred to procedural requirements for bail under Section 269 (non-attendance), Section 84 (proclamation for person absconding), and Section 209 (failure to appear in court) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations alongside the applicant's personal circumstances.

It noted that the 20 bulk liters of liquor were recovered from the co-accused, not the applicant’s exclusive possession.

Heavily weighing in the applicant's favor were the facts that he had no prior criminal record, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and he had been incarcerated since February 26, 2026.

The Court reasoned that since the trial was likely to take a significant amount of time, continued detention was unnecessary.

To ensure judicial discipline, the Court imposed strict conditions requiring the applicant to refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournments and to be present for all critical stages of the trial.

The High Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant on a personal bond with two sureties.

The Court ordered the applicant to appear at all hearings personally or through counsel, specifically requiring personal presence for the opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

Violation of these terms would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty.