Grant of Bail for Possession of 5.22 Bulk Litres of Liquor Following Filing of Charge-Sheet

The applicant was arrested on December 21, 2025, following a police search at his residence based on secret information regarding illegal liquor storage.

The police allegedly recovered 5.22 bulk litres of country-made liquor, a motorcycle, and ₹20,000.

Consequently, Crime No. 159/2025 was registered at Police Station Doundi under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail, contending false implication, that the offence is triable by a Magistrate, and that he is the sole breadwinner.

The State opposed the bail, citing two previous criminal antecedents and the fact that a charge-sheet had already been filed.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of the offence and the duration of his custodial detention.

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

It considered Section 34(2) of the BNS (corresponding to excise-related offences regarding the possession of illegal liquor).

The court also referenced procedural obligations for the accused under Section 269 of the BNS (non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant), Section 84 of the BNSS (proclamation for person absconding), and Section 209 of the BNS (failure to appear in court) to ensure the integrity of the trial process.

The court balanced the gravity of the allegations against the procedural status of the case.

It noted that the investigation was effectively complete as the charge-sheet had already been submitted before the competent court.

While the State raised concerns regarding the applicant’s two criminal antecedents, the court observed that the applicant had been in jail since December 21, 2025.

Taking into account that the trial's conclusion would likely take significant time and that the offence is triable by a Magistrate, the court determined that further prolonged pretrial incarceration was not warranted.

To mitigate the risk of flight or recidivism, the court imposed stringent conditions, including the filing of an undertaking against seeking unnecessary adjournments and mandatory presence during key trial stages.

The holding clarified that bail is justified when the charge-sheet is filed and trial length is uncertain.

The court imposed specific conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments during witness testimony, must appear at all fixed dates, and must specifically be present for the opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

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