Criminal antecedents alone do not bar bail where custody is prolonged and trial delayed.

On 27 June 2026, acting on secret information, Police Station Nandani Nagar, District Durg, allegedly seized 8.100 bulk litres of country-made liquor from the applicant’s possession and registered Crime No. 214/2026 for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

The applicant was arrested on 6 July 2026 and remained in judicial custody thereafter.

He filed his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, asserting false implication and fabrication of the seizure memo.

The applicant had two criminal antecedents—one under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act and another under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The charge-sheet had been filed, and the applicant contended that the trial would take considerable time.

The State opposed bail primarily on the ground of the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant, accused of an offence under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite his two criminal antecedents?

2. Whether the applicant’s custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely delay in conclusion of the trial justified release on bail subject to appropriate conditions?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

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

In granting bail, the Court considered the established factors of the nature of the allegation, the period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely duration of the trial.

Bail was made subject to conditions requiring attendance, non-delaying conduct, personal appearance at material stages of trial, and consequences for misuse of liberty, including proceedings under Sections 84 and 209 of the BNSS/BNS framework as specified in the order.

The Court acknowledged the allegation that 8.100 bulk litres of country-made liquor had been seized from the applicant and also noted the State’s objection based on his two antecedents.

However, the Court found that the applicant had been in custody since 6 July 2026, the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial was likely to take time.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court treated these circumstances as sufficient to justify interim release on bail.

The applicant’s antecedents were addressed through stringent conditions intended to secure his presence and prevent abuse of the concession of bail.

Release was ordered upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring the applicant to avoid unnecessary adjournments, remain present before the trial court, appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and face appropriate proceedings in case of absence or misuse of bail.