Bail granted where charge-sheet was filed, prior antecedent ended in acquittal, and trial would be delayed.

The applicant, Saroj Bai, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 335/2026 registered at Police Station Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

The prosecution alleged that, pursuant to information received by the police on 24 June 2026, a raid was conducted and 30 bulk litres of country-made liquor were recovered from the applicant’s possession.

The applicant denied the allegations, claimed false implication and challenged the seizure. She also disclosed one criminal antecedent under the Excise Act, in which she had already been acquitted.

The State opposed bail but acknowledged that the charge-sheet had been filed and that the applicant’s prior Excise case had ended in acquittal.

This was the applicant’s first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, in relation to the alleged offence under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

The Court considered established bail principles, including the nature of the allegations, the stage of the proceedings, filing of the charge-sheet, the period of incarceration, the applicant’s antecedents, and the likelihood of the trial taking time.

No judicial precedent was cited.

Bail was granted subject to conditions intended to secure the applicant’s presence, prevent misuse of liberty, and ensure expeditious conduct of the trial.

After examining the case diary and hearing both sides, the Court noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed, thereby reducing the immediate investigative necessity for continued custody.

The applicant had remained in custody since 24 June 2026, and the trial was likely to take some time.

Although she had one previous Excise-related case, that case had resulted in acquittal and therefore did not weigh against her as a subsisting adverse antecedent.

On the cumulative assessment of these factors, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The release was subject to conditions requiring her not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial Court as directed, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of her statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The order also authorised appropriate proceedings in the event of her absence, misuse of bail, or failure to comply with a proclamation issued under Section 84 of the BNSS.