Lack of criminal antecedents and filing of charge-sheet justify grant of bail under Excise Act.

The applicant was apprehended on January 24, 2026, by the Shivrinarayan police during a patrol near Bamri Talab.

Upon searching the applicant, police seized 40 liters of illicit mahua liquor (20 liters in a jerrycan and 200 plastic pouches of 100 ml each) for which he possessed no legal documentation.

He was arrested and charged under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act in connection with Crime No. 37/2026.

The applicant has been in custody since his arrest, and the investigation has concluded with the filing of the charge-sheet.

This is the first bail application preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, for an offense under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, given his period of detention and lack of criminal antecedents.

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

Substantively, the court considered Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, noting its sentencing range of one to three years.

Procedural safeguards for the trial were anchored in Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding non-appearance.

Section 84 of the BNSS regarding proclamations.

Section 209 of the BNS for failure to appear after proclamation.

Section 351 of the BNSS concerning the recording of the accused's statement.

The Court weighed the nature and gravity of the allegations against the applicant’s personal history and the procedural status of the case.

While the State opposed bail citing the seizure of 40 liters of liquor, the Court observed that the applicant has no prior criminal record.

The Court noted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, meaning the custodial interrogation or investigation is complete.

Furthermore, the Court considered that the applicant had been incarcerated since January 24, 2026, and that the trial was unlikely to conclude imminently.

Given that the maximum punishment for the offense is three years, the Court determined that continued pretrial detention was unnecessary, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's presence during trial.

The holding was made subject to specific conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments when witnesses are present, must appear personally at key trial stages (opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS), and faces proceedings under Sections 209 or 269 of the BNS in the event of default or misuse of liberty.