Filing of charge-sheet and lack of criminal antecedents justify regular bail under Section 34(2) Excise Act.

On 26.01.2026, acting on secret information, police intercepted the applicants on a motorcycle near Balsi culvert

A search conducted in the presence of witnesses led to the recovery of 25 liters of country-made mahua liquor for which the applicants could not produce valid documentation

The applicants were arrested on 27.01.2026 for offenses under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act

Following the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent court

The applicants moved the High Court for regular bail under the provisions of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the quantity of contraband seized and their lack of criminal antecedents

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

It considered the penal provisions of Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, noting the prescribed punishment range of one to three years

The Court further integrated procedural safeguards and compliance requirements under Sections 84 (proclamation for absconding persons), 94 (summons to produce documents), 269 (non-attendance in obedience to an order), and 351 (recording of statements) of the BNSS

The Court evaluated the entitlement to bail by balancing the gravity of the offense against the procedural status of the case and the applicants' personal history.

It observed that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had already been filed

The Court placed significant weight on the fact that the applicants had no prior criminal record and had been incarcerated since 27.01.2026

Considering the specific quantity of liquor seized (25 liters) and the likelihood that the trial would consume a substantial period, the Court found that continued pretrial detention was unnecessary

To mitigate the risk of flight or trial delay, the Court substituted detention with stringent judicial conditions, including mandatory attendance at specific trial stages

The holding established that bail was warranted given the absence of criminal antecedents and the completion of the charge-sheet

The Court imposed specific conditions: the applicants must not seek adjournments when witnesses are present, must appear personally for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS, and face proceedings under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita should they fail to appear after a proclamation