Grant of regular bail for excise offense where applicant has no criminal antecedents and charge-sheet is filed.

The applicant was arrested on 28.12.2025 in connection with Crime No. 99/2025 at Police Station Excise Area, Baramkela

Upon receiving informant-led information, the police conducted a raid and seized 60 bulk liters of country-made mahua liquor and 30 packets of mahua (totaling 600 kgs) from the applicant's possession

The applicant filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending he was falsely implicated and has no criminal antecedents

The State opposed the bail, citing the volume of the seizure

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the nature of the offence, the lack of criminal antecedents, and the duration of his pretrial detention

The court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the High Court's power to grant bail

Substantively, the case involved Sections 34(1)(a)(f), 34(2), and 59(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, which prescribe a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum of three years for the unlawful manufacture, possession, or sale of liquor

Procedural compliance was mandated under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for non-appearance, Section 84 of the BNSS for proclamations, and Section 351 of the BNSS for recording statements

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations and the volume of the seizure (60 liters of liquor and 600 kgs of mahua) against the personal circumstances of the applicant

It noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed before the competent court, indicating that custodial interrogation was no longer necessary for investigation

Crucially, the Court observed that the applicant had no prior criminal record and had been in custody since 28.12.2025

Given that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future and the maximum sentence is three years, the Court determined that continued incarceration was not warranted, provided strict conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant’s participation in the trial

The holding is contingent upon several conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear at every hearing (unless excused), and must be present for the framing of charges and recording of statements

Failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty and initiate proceedings under Sections 209 or 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita