Grant of bail for 65 liters of liquor seizure despite criminal antecedents and ongoing trial.

The applicant, Raj Kumar Gond, was arrested on 26.12.2025 in connection with Crime No. 311/2025 at Police Station Bilaigarh

The prosecution alleged that based on a secret tip, the police seized 65 liters of country-made liquor from the applicant’s possession

The applicant sought regular bail, contending he was falsely implicated and noting that the charge-sheet had already been filed

The State opposed the bail, citing three criminal antecedents (two under the Excise Act) and labeling the applicant a habitual offender

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the quantity of liquor seized, his period of detention, and his criminal antecedents

The court's decision was governed by Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail

It also considered Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, which prescribes a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum of three years for the unlawful possession of liquor

For the purpose of bail conditions, the court referenced Sections 269 (non-appearance in response to proclamation) and 209 (failure to appear in violation of bail) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Section 84 of the BNSS regarding proclamations for absconding persons

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations and the applicant's criminal history against his period of incarceration and the status of the investigation.

While the State highlighted that 65 liters of liquor were seized and that the applicant had prior cases under the Excise Act, the Court noted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, meaning custodial interrogation is no longer required

Furthermore, the Court observed that the applicant has been in jail since December 2025 and that the trial is likely to consume significant time

Given that the maximum sentence for the offense is three years, the Court determined that continued detention was not warranted, provided strict conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant’s participation in the trial

The holding is subject to strict conditions, including: (i) an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory presence on all trial dates; and (iii) personal appearance during crucial stages such as the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS

Failure to comply may result in the trial court treating it as an abuse of liberty