Habitual Offender Status and Multiple Pending Excise Act Cases Preclude Grant of Regular Bail.

The applicant, Rambali Prasad, was arrested on January 26, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 18/2026 at Police Station Bagbahra, District Mahasamund.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant was in possession of 67.14 bulk liters of country-made "Goa" liquor.

The applicant filed this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), contending false implication, a fabricated seizure memo, and prolonged detention.

While the applicant had been acquitted in two older cases from 2001 and 2006, three other cases under the Excise Act (from 2023 and 2024) remain pending.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. considering his period of detention and the nature of the evidence.

Whether the applicant's criminal antecedents and status as a habitual offender preclude the grant of bail.

The Court applied Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, which provides for penalties regarding the illegal possession of bulk quantities of liquor.

Procedurally, the application was governed by Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.) regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

The Court relied heavily on the precedent established in *Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another* (2022) 8 SCC 559, which affirms that previous criminal antecedents are a valid and primary ground for the cancellation or denial of bail.

The Court examined the competing arguments regarding the applicant's history and the current seizure.

While the applicant’s counsel argued that the trial would be lengthy and that the applicant had been acquitted in historical cases, the State highlighted that three recent cases under the Excise Act (Crime Nos. 218/2023, 59/2024, and 285/2024) are still pending.

The Court determined that the pendency of these two specific Excise Act cases indicated that the applicant is a "habitual offender".

Applying the logic from *Deepak Yadav*, the Court found that the risk of recidivism and the applicant's personal history outweighed the arguments for bail based on the duration of current detention.

The First Bail Application was rejected.

The Court specifically noted that the circumstances did not warrant the grant of regular bail in light of the objective gravity of consistent criminal antecedents.