Prolonged custody and charge-sheet filing justified regular bail despite one criminal antecedent.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 160/2026 registered at Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund, for an offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

The prosecution alleged that, on 9 May 2026, the applicant was found near Kaura Nala, Village Podpali, in possession of 1,000 kg of mahua fruit, equipment allegedly used for manufacturing liquor, and 200 litres of hand-made mahua liquor, without a valid licence or documents.

The applicant had remained in custody since 9 May 2026, and the charge-sheet was filed on 1 July 2026.

He sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, additionally stating that he was the only son of his father, who had died on 11 August 2026, and that he was required to perform the last rites and customary obligations.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had one prior criminal antecedent, although it acknowledged that the charge-sheet had been filed.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, while facing prosecution under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

Whether the applicant’s period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and the anticipated delay in conclusion of the trial justified his release on bail despite the alleged gravity of the offence and one prior criminal antecedent.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of regular bail by the High Court or Court of Session.

The underlying prosecution concerned Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, relating to the alleged possession or manufacture of illicit liquor in the quantity and circumstances specified by that provision.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the period of detention, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the likelihood of tampering with evidence, and the probable duration of the trial.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

After considering the case diary and the submissions of both sides, the Court balanced the allegations concerning the possession of 200 litres of hand-made mahua liquor and manufacturing material against the applicant’s continued detention since 9 May 2026.

Although the State relied on one previous criminal antecedent, the Court gave weight to the fact that the charge-sheet had already been filed, thereby reducing the immediate possibility of interference with the investigation or material evidence.

The Court also found that the trial was likely to take considerable time.

On the overall facts and circumstances, the Court concluded that further pre-trial detention was not warranted and that the applicant could be released subject to safeguards securing his presence and preventing misuse of bail.

The applicant was directed to be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial Court on every date fixed, to comply with proceedings arising from any deliberate absence or misuse of bail, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

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