Grant of bail for excise offense where charge-sheet is filed and seizure witnesses turned hostile.

The applicant, Indra Kumar Sahu, was arrested on September 28, 2025, following a police search based on secret information.

The prosecution alleges that 138.240 bulk liters of country-made liquor were seized from a "Mahtari Express" vehicle in the applicant's possession for illegal sale.

The applicant filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending that the seizure was from an open place, measurement procedures were flawed, and key seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution's case.

The State opposed bail, noting one previous criminal antecedent and that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the period of incarceration, the nature of the evidence, and the stage of the trial.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of regular bail, replacing Section 439 of the CrPC.

The legal principles applied involve balancing the liberty of the accused against the gravity of the offense, the presence of a charge-sheet, and the likelihood of the trial's timely conclusion.

Relevant penal provisions included Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act regarding the illegal possession and sale of liquor.

The Court evaluated the facts and circumstances, noting that the applicant had been in custody since the date of the incident, September 28, 2025.

Although the State highlighted a criminal antecedent, the Court observed that the charge-sheet had already been submitted, signifying that the investigation was complete.

Furthermore, the Court took into account the applicant's argument regarding the deposition of seizure witnesses and the fact that the trial’s conclusion was likely to take a significant amount of time.

Applying the principle of judicial discretion in bail matters, the Court determined that continued detention was not warranted provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's presence during trial.

The holding clarified that despite past antecedents, the completion of the investigation and the duration of custody justified bail.

The Court imposed specific conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear at every hearing (subject to Section 269 BNS for absence), and must be present for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS.

Failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty.