Lack of criminal antecedents and filed charge-sheet justify regular bail for excise law violations.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 347/2026 following a raid by the Excise Circle Ambikapur, which resulted in the seizure of 135 bulk liters of foreign-made liquor from his possession

He was charged under Sections 34(1), 34(2), and 59(A) of the C.G. Excise Act

The applicant has been in judicial custody since January 24, 2026

Seeking regular bail, the applicant contended he was falsely implicated, had no criminal antecedents, and noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed

The State opposed the bail, citing the volume of liquor seized

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 offense and the period of incarceration.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail

Substantive charges were considered under Sections 34(1), 34(2), and 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, where Section 34(2) prescribes a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum of three years

The court referenced Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding non-attendance in obedience to an order from a public servant, and Sections 84 and 209 of the BNS/BNSS regarding proclamation for person absconding and failure to appear

The Court exercised its discretion to grant bail by evaluating the specific facts and circumstances of the case against established judicial parameters for liberty.

The Chief Justice emphasized that the applicant had no prior criminal record, which mitigated the risk of recidivism

The Court noted that the investigation was effectively complete as the charge-sheet had already been filed before the competent court

Given that the applicant had been incarcerated since January 24, 2026, and the trial was expected to be protracted, the Court determined that continued pre-trial detention was unnecessary, provided that stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's participation in the trial process

The holding is contingent upon several conditions: (i) the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) he must appear on all trial dates; (iii) any misuse of liberty or failure to appear under proclamation will result in proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; and (iv) personal appearance is mandatory for the opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of statements under Section 351 of BNSS

The trial court was directed to be informed of this order for immediate compliance