Grant of bail for possession of commercial quantity of liquor where previous criminal antecedent resulted in acquittal.

The applicant, Sundar De, was arrested on 08.01.2026 in connection with Crime No. 159/2026.

Prosecution alleged that following a police raid at the Reserve Centre, Excise Circle Korba, 30 bulk liters of handmade mahua liquor and 120 kgs of mahua lahan were seized from the applicant's possession.

The applicant filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), contending false implication and noting that his sole criminal antecedent from 2019 resulted in an acquittal.

The State opposed bail, arguing the applicant is a habitual offender due to said antecedent.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the quantity of contraband seized, his past criminal record, and the duration of his pretrial detention.

The Court applied Sections 34(1)(a)(f), 34(2), and 59(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, which govern the unlawful manufacture, possession, and sale of intoxicants; Section 34(2) prescribes a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum of three years.

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

The Court also referenced Sections 84, 209, 269, and 351 of the BNSS to impose conditions related to court attendance and consequences of non-compliance.

The Court weighed the severity of the allegations (possession of 30 liters of liquor and 120 kgs of lahan) against the mitigating factors presented by the defense.

It noted that while the State alleged the applicant was a habitual offender, the only cited antecedent from 2019 had resulted in an acquittal.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicant had been in custody since early January 2026, and the trial was unlikely to conclude in the immediate future.

Given that the maximum punishment for the primary offense is three years, the Court determined that continued incarceration was not warranted.

The holding was contingent upon several conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear at every hearing personally or through counsel (subject to Section 269 BNSS), and must remain personally present for the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS.

Breach of these conditions allows the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty and initiate proceedings under Sections 84 and 209 of the BNSS.