Grant of bail for excise offense despite prior antecedents where investigation is complete and trial is protracted.

The applicant was arrested on 07.12.2025 in connection with Crime No. 772/2025 at Police Station Bhatapara Gramin.

The prosecution alleged that based on a secret tip, police intercepted a vehicle carrying the applicant and a co-accused, seizing 74.520 bulk liters of illicit liquor.

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

The State opposed the bail, citing the recovery amount and the applicant's two criminal antecedents (one under the Excise Act and one under the IPC).

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for offences under the C.G. Excise Act, despite having criminal antecedents.

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

The substantive offence was registered under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, which carries a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum of three years.

The court also referenced procedural compliance under Sections 269 (non-attendance), 84 (proclamation for person absconding), 209 (failure to appear), and 351 (statement of accused) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and BNSS as conditions for the continued liberty of the applicant.

The Court weighed the gravity of the allegations and the quantity of liquor seized against the period of the applicant's incarceration and the likely duration of the trial.

While acknowledging the applicant's two criminal antecedents, the Court noted that one (Excise Act, 2025) had already been disposed of, and the other (IPC, 2020) remained pending.

The Court observed that since the charge-sheet had already been filed and the conclusion of the trial would take considerable time, the continued detention of the applicant was unnecessary.

The Court determined that the interests of justice would be served by granting bail subject to stringent conditions to ensure the applicant’s presence during trial.

The Court held that the applicant be released upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including: (i) no seeking of adjournments during witness testimony, (ii) mandatory presence on all trial dates unless excused, and (iii) strict compliance with BNS/BNSS provisions regarding appearance.

The Court directed that any default in these conditions would allow the trial court to treat it as an abuse of liberty.