Grant of regular bail for huge seizure of liquor where the applicant is without criminal antecedents.

The applicant filed a First Bail Application seeking regular bail for offences registered under Sections 34(1)(a)(f), 34(2), and 59(a) of the C.G. Excise Act.

On 28.12.2025, police acted on secret information and seized 120 liters of crushed handmade Mahua and 1200 kg of Mahua lahan from the applicant's possession.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated, noting that seizure witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's story.

The State opposed bail, highlighting the quantity of liquor seized (cited as 45 bulk liters of country-made liquor in the State's submission) and the filing of the charge-sheet.

The applicant has been in custody since 28.12.2025.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the recovery, lack of criminal antecedents, and the stage of the trial.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

It considered the penal provisions of Sections 34(1)(a)(f), 34(2), and 59(a) of the C.G. Excise Act, specifically noting that Section 34(2) carries a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum of three years.

Additionally, the court referenced Section 269 (non-appearance), Section 84 (proclamation), and Section 209 (non-compliance with proclamation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) as conditions for the continued liberty of the applicant.

The Court weighed the gravity of the allegations and the significant quantity of Mahua seized (120 liters of crushed Mahua and 1200 kg of lahan) against several mitigating factors.

The Court observed that the applicant has no prior criminal history and that the investigation has reached a stage where the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent court.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the trial is likely to take time to conclude and the applicant has already been incarcerated since December 2025.

Given these circumstances, and without commenting on the merits of the hostile witnesses at this stage, the Court determined that continued pretrial detention was unnecessary.

The holding is contingent upon several conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments (Condition i), must appear on all trial dates (Condition ii/iv), and must comply with BNS provisions regarding court attendance to avoid the revocation of liberty.

The trial court was directed to treat any default in these conditions as an abuse of the liberty of bail.