Custodial detention not warranted for Excise Act offences where seizure is complete and trial is triable by JMFC.

The applicant was arrested on 21.11.2025 in connection with Crime No. 212/2025

On 05.10.2025, police intercepted a vehicle (CG-04/LN-7120) in Village Khadgawan and seized 225 bulk liters of Goa Whiskey (English liquor)

The applicant, who was traveling in the vehicle, was charged under Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915

The applicant contended he was merely a passenger with no conscious possession or knowledge of the illicit liquor

Having had a prior bail application rejected by the trial court on 22.12.2025, the applicant moved the High Court for regular bail

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the period of custody and nature of the offense.

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

It considered Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, regarding the possession and transportation of illicit liquor

The court also referenced the principle of parity, noting previous instances (MCRC No. 4273/2024 and MCRC No. 2019/2025) where bail was granted in similar circumstances involving large quantities of liquor

Furthermore, it adhered to the general criminal jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail is the exception for offenses not punishable by death or life imprisonment

The Court balanced the gravity of the seizure (225 bulk liters) against the procedural and personal circumstances of the applicant.

It noted that the applicant had been in custody since 21.11.2025 and that the investigation, specifically the seizure, was already complete, rendering further custodial interrogation unnecessary

The Court took into account that the offenses are triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class and do not carry the maximum penalties of death or life imprisonment

Given that the trial was expected to take considerable time and the applicant had no recorded criminal antecedents, the Court determined that continued detention was not warranted

The Court did not express an opinion on the merits of the "conscious possession" argument but found the grounds sufficient for release subject to strict conditions to ensure trial participation

The holding is conditioned upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and adhering to four specific conditions: (i) no seeking of adjournments during witness testimony; (ii) mandatory presence on all trial dates or face proceedings under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; (iii) liability under Section 209 of the BNS for absconding; and (iv) personal appearance for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS