Detention Period and Charge-Sheet Filing Justify Bail Under Excise Act Despite Multiple Criminal Antecedents

The applicant was apprehended by police officials on 08.01.2026 during a patrol.

Upon interception, 32 quarters of country-made liquor, totaling 5.760 bulk liters, were seized from his possession.

Consequently, an FIR (Crime No. 08/2026) was registered at Police Station Bhatapara City under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, and the applicant was arrested on the same day.

The applicant moved for regular bail, contending that he had been falsely implicated, the investigation (charge-sheet) was complete, and he had been in judicial custody since his arrest.

The State opposed the bail, highlighting that the applicant has seven previous criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the nature of the offense and the duration of his detention.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant regular bail.

The substantive charge was under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, which penalizes the unlawful possession of liquor beyond prescribed limits.

Furthermore, the court incorporated procedural safeguards and penalties for bail default as per Sections 84 (proclamation for person absconding), 209 (failure to appear), 269 (non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant), and 351 (evidence in presence of accused) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court evaluated the "overall facts and circumstances" of the case, focusing on the proportionality between the gravity of the offense and the period of detention.

Although the State emphasized the applicant's seven previous criminal antecedents, the court noted that the applicant had remained in judicial custody since 08.01.2026.

Crucially, the court found that since the charge-sheet had already been filed and the trial was expected to take considerable time to conclude, further pre-trial detention was unnecessary.

To mitigate the risk posed by the applicant’s criminal history and ensure his cooperation with the trial, the court transitioned from a denial of bail to a conditional grant of liberty, mandating local sureties and strict adherence to trial schedules.

The holding is subject to strict conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during witness testimony, must appear on all trial dates (specifically for framing of charges and recording of statements), and faces immediate revocation of bail and fresh proceedings under the BNS if he defaults or misuses his liberty.

The trial court was directed to treat any breach of these conditions as an abuse of the liberty of bail.