Bail granted where the accused has no antecedents, charge-sheet is filed, and trial may be prolonged.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 48/2026 registered at Police Station Suregaon, District Balod, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

On 29 June 2026, acting on secret information regarding illegal liquor sale, the police apprehended the applicant near Village Kashikala Gauthan and seized 5.400 bulk litres of country-made liquor from his possession.

As he could not produce a valid licence or document authorising possession, he was arrested.

After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet before the competent court.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, contending that he was innocent, had been in custody since 29 June 2026, had no criminal antecedents, and that the trial would take time.

The State opposed the application.

Whether the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in connection with an offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act?

Whether the applicant’s period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, and the likely delay in conclusion of trial justified the grant of bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to an accused in custody.

The alleged offence was under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, concerning unlawful possession or handling of liquor beyond the prescribed quantity.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegation, the applicant’s period of incarceration, the status of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the existence or absence of criminal antecedents.

Bail was made subject to conditions requiring the applicant’s attendance, cooperation with the trial, and avoidance of misuse of liberty.

The Court considered the case diary and noted that the applicant had remained in custody since 29 June 2026, the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed, and the applicant had no registered criminal antecedents.

Although the allegation involved seizure of 5.400 bulk litres of country-made liquor, the Court found that the continued detention of the applicant was not warranted because the trial was likely to take time.

Balancing the nature and gravity of the allegation against the applicant’s custody, clean antecedents, and the completed investigation, the Court concluded that he was entitled to bail.

The release was subject to conditions, including not seeking adjournments when witnesses were present, appearing before the trial court on each date, complying with proceedings relating to absence or misuse of bail, and appearing personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the trial court for compliance.