Bail granted where chargesheet was filed, custody was prolonged, and nearly all antecedents ended in acquittal.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 129/2026 registered at Police Station Charama, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The prosecution alleged that police, acting on information, searched the applicant’s chicken-cutting shop and recovered approximately 10 litres and 260 millilitres of different varieties of country-made and foreign liquor, valued at ₹5,520, along with ₹600 alleged sale proceeds.

The applicant had been in custody since 19 June 2026, and the charge-sheet had already been filed.

He relied on the expected delay in conclusion of the trial and submitted that, out of 24 criminal antecedents, only one case remained pending, the others having resulted in acquittal.

The State opposed the bail application.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the allegation under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, the period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely delay in trial?

2. Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents, numbering 24 but with only one case pending, justified refusal of bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

The alleged substantive offence was under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, concerning unlawful possession, storage, or sale of liquor in the quantity alleged in the prosecution case.

In exercising bail discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the period of incarceration, filing of the charge-sheet, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

The Court considered the prosecution allegation and the applicant’s criminal history but noted that the applicant had been in custody since 19 June 2026, the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial was likely to take some time.

Although the applicant had 24 criminal antecedents, the Court attached significance to the fact that he had been acquitted in all but one of those cases.

Balancing these circumstances against the nature and gravity of the allegation, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted and that the applicant was entitled to bail.

The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The Court imposed conditions requiring the applicant 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 his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The order also authorised the trial court to take action in accordance with law in the event of absence, misuse of bail, or failure to comply with the specified conditions.