Bail may be granted under Section 34(2) Excise Act despite criminal antecedents if the charge-sheet is filed.

The applicant was arrested on 22.02.2026 in connection with Crime No. 36/2026 at Police Station Patewa for allegedly possessing 75 liters of handmade country liquor

The prosecution alleged the recovery was made based on secret information

The applicant filed a first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending false implication and noting that despite three criminal antecedents, he had been acquitted in one, one was disposed of, and one remained pending

The State opposed bail, citing the quantity of liquor and the applicant’s criminal history

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, given the nature of the offense under Section 34 of the C.G. Excise Act and the specific circumstances of his criminal antecedents.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail

Section 34 of the C.G. Excise Act, which prescribes a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum of three years for the illicit possession of liquor

provisions regarding trial attendance and consequences of default under Sections 269 (non-attendance), 84 (proclamation for person absconding), 209 (failure to appear), and 351 (recording of statement) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and BNSS

The Court weighed the gravity of the allegations and the quantity of liquor seized (75 bulk liters) against the period of the applicant's incarceration (since 22.02.2026) and the procedural status of the case

Although the State emphasized the applicant's prior criminal record, the Court observed that his 2015 IPC case ended in acquittal, his 2022 Gambling Act case was disposed of, and only one Excise Act case from 2024 remained pending

Reasoning that the charge-sheet had already been filed and the trial was likely to be protracted, the Court determined that continued detention was unnecessary

The Court balanced the liberty of the individual with judicial oversight by imposing stringent conditions, including personal presence during key trial stages and undertakings against seeking adjournments

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions: (i) no adjournments during witness testimony, (ii) mandatory presence on all trial dates per Section 269 BNS, (iii) risk of proceedings under Section 209 BNS for non-appearance, and (iv) mandatory personal appearance for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS