Grant of bail for excise offence where accused has served significant custody and trial is pending.

The applicant was arrested on January 3, 2026, following a police raid in Village Gobaripat based on secret information regarding the possession of illicit liquor.

The police recovered 8.280 bulk liters of country-made liquor from the applicant.

Consequently, an FIR was registered under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The applicant sought regular bail, contending false implication and noting that he had been in custody since the date of arrest while the trial remains pending.

The State opposed the bail, citing the applicant's five criminal antecedents, which include preventive measures and IPC offenses.

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 and his criminal history.

The court primarily applied Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, which prescribes a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum of three years for the illegal possession of liquor.

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

The court also referenced the transition of procedural law, citing Sections 84 (proclamation for person absconding), 209 (punishment for non-appearance), 269 (non-attendance in obedience to an order), and 351 (accused's statement) of the BNSS and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for bail condition compliance.

The court balanced the gravity of the allegations and the applicant's criminal history against the duration of his pretrial detention and the stage of the proceedings.

Although the State highlighted five criminal antecedents, the court noted that three were of a preventive nature and had been disposed of, while only one IPC case remained pending.

The court observed that the charge-sheet had already been filed and that the conclusion of the trial was likely to take significant time.

Given that the maximum sentence for the offense is three years and the applicant had already served over two months in custody, the court determined that further incarceration was not warranted at this stage.

The court imposed specific conditions to ensure trial participation, including mandates that the applicant shall not seek unnecessary adjournments, must be present for the framing of charges and recording of statements, and warned that failure to appear would result in proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS.

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