Man Named By Co-Accused In Liquor Case Gets Bail, Chhattisgarh HC Citing No Incriminating Seizure From Him And Co-Accused’s Bail

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after arrest in Crime No. 537/2026, registered for offences under Sections 34(2), 36, 49-A and 59-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and Sections 111, 338, 336(3), 340(2), 238, 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Police allegedly seized 89.46 bulk litres of English liquor, empty bottles, labels and packaging materials from co-accused at a farmhouse; the applicant’s name emerged during investigation from co-accused statements, and no incriminating article was seized from him

The applicant relied on the grant of bail to co-accused Puran Verma, his lack of criminal antecedents, custody since 18 September 2026, and the likely duration of trial.

The State opposed bail, citing the quantity seized and the alleged manner of the offence; it also stated that the charge-sheet had been filed

The application was considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides the statutory basis invoked for regular bail

The Court assessed the application by reference to the case’s facts and circumstances, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicant’s attributed role, the absence of a seizure from his possession, parity with a similarly situated co-accused, criminal antecedents, custody, filing of the charge-sheet and the likely time for trial

The Court cited no separate precedent or detailed statutory test; it noted the co-accused’s bail order in MCRC No. 10057/2026 dated 27 October 2026 as relevant to parity

Although the allegations concerned a substantial quantity of liquor and related packaging materials, those articles were seized from co-accused, not from the applicant, whose alleged involvement rested on co-accused statements

The Court also considered that a similarly situated co-accused had been granted bail, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet was filed, he had been in custody since 18 September 2026, and trial was likely to take time.

Weighing these circumstances against the State’s objection, the Court found the applicant entitled to bail

Bail was subject to conditions that he not induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the case facts; not act prejudicially to a fair and expeditious trial; and attend every date fixed by the trial Court until disposal of the trial.