Continued custody and likely trial delay supported bail where no live Excise Act antecedent existed.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 188/2026 at Police Station Pithaura for an alleged offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The prosecution alleged that, following secret information, police seized 15 litres of country-made liquor from him

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that the liquor was not seized from his exclusive possession, that his prior IPC case had ended in acquittal, and that he had been in custody since 30 July 2026.

The State opposed bail, citing the possibility of absconding; the charge-sheet had been filed

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in the circumstances of the case

2. Whether the applicant’s custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, the anticipated duration of trial, and his criminal antecedent warranted release on bail

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of an application for regular bail

The alleged offence was punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act; the applicant’s counsel submitted that it carried a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum of three years

The Court assessed bail by considering the facts and circumstances, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the period of custody in light of the time likely to be required for trial

The Court considered the allegation concerning the 15 litres of liquor alongside the applicant’s custody since 30 July 2026 and the filing of the charge-sheet, which indicated that the trial could take further time

It also noted that there was no live criminal antecedent under the Excise Act pending against the applicant; the earlier IPC antecedent had resulted in acquittal

Having regard to these circumstances and the nature and gravity of the allegation, the Court found that continued detention was not warranted and that the applicant was entitled to bail

Bail was subject to conditions requiring availability for police interrogation when required, non-interference with persons acquainted with the case, and conduct consistent with a fair and expeditious trial

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the trial Court’s decision on the merits