Prolonged custody and anticipated trial delay justified regular bail after charge-sheet filing.

On 18 June 2026, police officials at Police Station Bagbahra, District Mahasamund, acting on informant information, conducted a raid at the applicant’s residence in Village Harnadadar.

They allegedly recovered approximately 60 litres of Mahua liquor, along with gas cylinders, a stove, aluminium pots and steel pots allegedly used for manufacture of illicit liquor, with an estimated cumulative value of Rs. 15,500.

The applicant was arrested on the same day and Crime No. 110/2026 was registered for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending false implication, absence of recovery from his possession, a previously acquitted Excise Act case, prolonged custody since 18 June 2026, and likely delay in conclusion of the trial.

The State opposed bail, stating that the charge-sheet had been filed before the competent court.

Whether the applicant, accused of an offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the alleged recovery and the circumstances of the case.

Whether the applicant’s custody, filing of the charge-sheet, previous acquittal in an Excise Act case, and the likelihood of delay in trial justified release on bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The alleged offence was punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act; the applicant submitted that it carried a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum punishment of three years.

The Court considered established bail principles, including the nature and gravity of the allegation, the stage of investigation, the period of custody, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the accused’s antecedents.

Bail was granted subject to safeguards concerning attendance, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments, personal presence at material stages of trial, and consequences for misuse of bail.

After examining the case diary, the Court considered the alleged recovery of approximately 60 litres of illicit Mahua liquor and the manufacturing equipment, as well as the nature and gravity of the allegation.

However, the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicant had remained in custody since 18 June 2026, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

The Court also took into account that the applicant’s only stated criminal antecedent under the Excise Act had resulted in acquittal and that an explanation had been provided regarding it.

Balancing these factors against the prosecution’s objection, the Court found the case appropriate for exercise of its discretionary power to grant regular bail.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when prosecution witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and to comply with the statutory consequences of absence or misuse of bail.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.