Lack of criminal antecedents and charge-sheet filing justify bail for illicit liquor possession.

The applicant was arrested on December 3, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 1102/2025 registered at Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur

The prosecution alleged that the applicant was found in possession of 10 liters of illicit, hand-made raw Mahua liquor, valued at approximately Rs. 8,000/-, which was concealed in bushes near a pond behind his residence

Upon failing to produce a valid license, the contraband was seized, and a notice under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was served

The applicant subsequently moved the High Court for regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS for an offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, given the duration of his incarceration and the stage of the trial

Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, which penalizes the unlawful possession or sale of liquor

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the High Court's power to grant bail

Section 269 regarding non-appearance before the court and Section 209 regarding failure to appear after a proclamation under Section 84 of the BNSS

The court analyzed the applicant’s eligibility for bail by weighing the gravity of the offense against his personal conduct and procedural milestones. It noted that the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents, indicating a lack of habitual criminality

the court observed that the charge-sheet had already been filed before the competent court, suggesting that the investigation was complete and the risk of tampering with evidence was minimized

Considering that the applicant had been in custody since December 3, 2025, and that the conclusion of the trial would likely be protracted, the court determined that further detention was unnecessary

To mitigate the risk of absconding or trial delay, the court imposed stringent conditions, including a prohibition on seeking adjournments during witness presence and mandatory personal appearance during key trial stages

The court held that the applicant was entitled to bail based on his lack of criminal history, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the duration of his pre-trial detention

the applicant must not seek adjournments when witnesses are present, must appear on all fixed dates, and must comply with requirements during the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS. Failure to comply allows the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty