Grant of bail for possession of 50 liters of liquor considering filed charge-sheet and lack of relevant antecedents.

The three applicants (a father and his two sons) were arrested on December 22, 2025, following a police raid at their residence in Village Memra.

Based on an informant's tip, the police allegedly seized 50 liters of illicit country-made Mahua liquor intended for sale.

The applicants were charged under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The defense argued that the liquor was recovered from an open, accessible area and that the applicants were falsely implicated.

While Applicant No. 1 had one prior criminal antecedent (resulting in acquittal), the others had no criminal history.

A charge-sheet had already been filed by the time of this application.

Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the seizure and their period of incarceration.

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/sale of liquor.

Procedurally, the application was governed by Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

The court also referenced Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding non-appearance and Section 84 of the BNSS regarding proclamations for absconding persons.

The court evaluated the gravity of the allegations alongside the progress of the legal proceedings.

It noted that the investigation was effectively complete as the charge-sheet had been filed.

The court observed that Applicant No. 1's sole criminal antecedent ended in acquittal, while Applicants No. 2 and 3 were first-time offenders.

Furthermore, the court considered the quantity of liquor seized (50 liters) and the fact that the applicants had been in custody since late 2025.

Given that the trial's conclusion was expected to take considerable time, the court determined that continued pretrial detention was unnecessary, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure their presence during trial proceedings.

The court held that the circumstances warranted bail but conditioned it on the applicants not seeking unnecessary adjournments, appearing at every hearing (unless excused), and complying with Sections 209 and 351 of the BNSS.

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