Bail may be granted under Excise Act where charge-sheet is filed and accused has minimal criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Yogesh Ratre, was arrested on December 22, 2025, following a police raid based on secret information.

The prosecution alleged that 85 litres of country-made hand liquor were seized from an open place at the incident site, for which the applicant could not produce valid documentation.

Consequently, an offence was registered under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act at Police Station Basna.

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail, arguing false implication, non-compliance with mandatory search and seizure procedures, and the length of his pretrial detention.

The State opposed the bail, citing one prior criminal antecedent under the same Act and the quantity of liquor seized.

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 offence and the period of incarceration.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), regarding the power of the High Court to grant bail.

It also considered Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, which prescribes a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum of three years for illegal possession of liquor.

Furthermore, procedural conduct during bail was governed by Section 269 (non-attendance), Section 84 (proclamation for person absconding), and Section 209 (failure to appear) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alongside Section 351 of the BNSS regarding the recording of statements.

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations and the applicant's criminal history against the procedural status of the case.

While the State highlighted one criminal antecedent and the seizure of 85 litres of liquor, the Court noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The Court observed that the applicant had been in custody since December 22, 2025, and reasoned that the conclusion of the trial was likely to take a significant amount of time.

By taking into account the fact that there was only one prior antecedent and the primary investigation was complete (as evidenced by the charge-sheet), the Court determined that continued pretrial detention was not warranted, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's participation in the trial.

The holding was conditioned on the applicant's undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments, mandatory presence during key trial stages (framing of charges and statement recording under Section 351 BNSS), and a warning that any misuse of liberty or failure to appear would result in proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS and Section 84 of the BNSS.