Lack of criminal antecedents and prolonged incarceration justify the grant of bail under the Excise Act.

On January 8, 2026, acting on informant intelligence, police conducted a raid in the Chhindauli forest village.

The applicant, Tejram Yadav, was found in possession of three plastic jerry cans containing a total of 30 liters of hand-made Mahua liquor without valid documentation.

The applicant was arrested on the same day and charged under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail, contending false implication and noting that he had been in custody since the date of the incident.

The State opposed the bail, citing the quantity of liquor recovered, though it acknowledged that the charge-sheet had been filed and the applicant had no prior criminal record.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) considering the nature of the offense and the duration of pretrial detention.

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

Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, which stipulates a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum of three years for illegal possession of liquor.

Procedural consequences for the abuse of bail conditions under Sections 209 and 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 84 of the BNSS.

In evaluating the bail plea, the court balanced the gravity of the allegations against the applicant’s procedural history and personal background.

The court noted that the applicant had already spent over two months in jail (since January 8, 2026) for an offense where the maximum sentence is three years.

A critical factor in the court's reasoning was that the investigation was effectively complete, evidenced by the filing of the charge-sheet.

The court placed significant weight on the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents.

Reasoning that the conclusion of the trial would likely be protracted, the court determined that continued incarceration was unnecessary, provided that stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's participation in the trial.

It held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties.

The court imposed specific conditions: the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments, must appear at every hearing (specifically for charge framing and Section 351 BNSS statements), and faces immediate proceedings under the BNS and BNSS should he abscond or misuse the liberty of bail.