Bail granted under Section 34(2) Excise Act despite criminal antecedents due to prolonged pretrial detention.

The applicant, Tilak Janghel, was arrested on January 29, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 28/2026 at Police Station Urla, Raipur.

The prosecution alleged that based on secret information, the police seized 16.560 bulk litres of illicit country-made hand liquor from an open area near Paal Hotel, which was allegedly in the applicant's possession for sale without legal documentation.

The applicant filed this first bail application challenging his detention, asserting his innocence and noting that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The State opposed the bail, citing the applicant's three criminal antecedents, including one prior offense under the Excise Act.

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 incarceration.

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

Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, which prescribes a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum of three years for the illegal possession/sale of liquor.

Procedural compliance under Sections 269 (non-attendance), 84 (proclamations), 209 (failure to appear), and 351 (recording statements) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and BNSS.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations and the applicant's criminal history against the procedural status of the case and the duration of his detention. Although the State emphasized the seizure of 16.560 bulk litres and the existence of three criminal antecedents, the Court noted that the investigation was largely complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Recognizing that the maximum sentence for the offense is three years and that the applicant had been in custody since late January 2026, the Court reasoned that since the trial would likely take considerable time to conclude, continued incarceration was not warranted.

To mitigate risks associated with the applicant's prior record, the Court imposed stringent conditions regarding his presence during trial and a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The holding was contingent on several conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during witness testimony, must appear at every hearing (specifically for charge framing and recording of statements), and faces immediate revocation of liberty or fresh proceedings under Section 209 of the BNS/Section 84 of the BNSS if he absconds or defaults.