Bail is warranted where the chargesheet is filed and prolonged custody would be disproportionate to likely trial delay.

The applicant was arrested on 28 June 2026 in connection with Crime No. 529/2026 registered at Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The prosecution alleged that, pursuant to secret information, police seized 30 litres of raw Mahua liquor, valued at ₹3,000, from an open area behind the applicant’s house.

The applicant denied the allegation and contended that he had been called to the police station for questioning under the Nijat programme and was falsely implicated due to police vendetta.

He further argued that the alleged seizure was not from his conscious possession and that the investigation had been completed and the charge-sheet filed.

The applicant had one prior Excise Act case in which only a fine had been imposed.

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

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the alleged recovery of 30 litres of raw Mahua liquor and one criminal antecedent under the Excise Act?

Whether the completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of custody, and the likelihood of delay in trial justified his release on bail?

What conditions should govern the applicant’s release on bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, under which the applicant was prosecuted.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature of the accusation, the stage of investigation, the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of incarceration, his criminal antecedent, and the likelihood of the trial taking considerable time.

Bail was granted subject to conditions intended to secure the applicant’s presence, prevent delay, and address any misuse of the liberty of bail.

The Court found that the charge-sheet had already been filed, thereby reducing the need for continued custodial detention, and noted that the applicant had remained in custody since 28 June 2026.

Although the applicant had one antecedent under the Excise Act, the Court took into account that the antecedent had resulted only in the imposition of a fine.

The Court also accepted that the trial was likely to take time to conclude, making continued pre-trial incarceration disproportionate at that stage.

On this cumulative assessment, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to regular bail, without making any final determination on the merits of the prosecution case.

The applicant, Pippi @ Pritam Dahariya, was directed to be released in connection with Crime No. 529/2026 on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, 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, and to face proceedings in accordance with law in the event of absence or misuse of bail.

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