No prior criminal antecedents and likely trial delay justify regular bail despite liquor seizure.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with a prosecution under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

Police alleged that 33 bulk litres of country-made liquor were seized from his possession following a raid.

The applicant submitted that he had no criminal antecedents, had been in custody since 15 August 2026, and that the charge-sheet had been filed; the State opposed bail, relying on the quantity seized and the alleged exclusive possession.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in the circumstances of the case.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the Court to grant regular bail.

In deciding the application, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, and the likely time required to conclude the trial.

The alleged offence was under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

Although 33 bulk litres of country-made liquor had allegedly been seized from the applicant, the Court noted that he had no previous criminal antecedents, indicating that he was not a habitual offender.

The charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had been in custody since 15 August 2026, and the trial was likely to take time. Considering these circumstances alongside the nature and gravity of the allegations, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail.

It directed that the applicant be released upon executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like sum, subject to the trial Court’s satisfaction.

Bail was conditioned on non-interference with witnesses, conduct consistent with a fair and expeditious trial, and appearance on every date fixed by the trial Court until conclusion of the trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial Court’s independent decision on the merits.