Prolonged custody and likely trial delay justified bail despite one criminal antecedent.

On 26 June 2026, acting on secret information, Police Station Saraipali allegedly seized 26 bulk litres of country-made liquor from the possession of Bharat Bhardwaj and registered Crime No. 214/2026 for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

The applicant was arrested on the same date and remained in custody thereafter.

He filed his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that he had been falsely implicated, that the seizure memo was fabricated, and that the charge-sheet had been filed.

The applicant also had one criminal antecedent, while the State opposed bail principally on that ground.

Whether the applicant, accused of possessing 26 bulk litres of country-made liquor under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the applicant’s one criminal antecedent was sufficient, in the circumstances of the case, to deny bail despite his period of custody and filing of the charge-sheet.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and considered the nature of the allegation, the period of custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely duration of the trial.

The alleged substantive offence was Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

Bail was granted without expressing any opinion on the merits, subject to conditions designed to secure the applicant’s presence, prevent delay, and regulate the use of bail liberty, including personal appearance at specified stages of the trial.

The Court found that the applicant had been in custody since 26 June 2026, that the charge-sheet had already been filed, and that the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude.

Although the applicant had one criminal antecedent and the State opposed bail on that basis, the Court considered the overall circumstances, including the nature of the allegation and the procedural stage of the case, and held that continued detention was not warranted at that stage.

The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the merits of the prosecution case.

The applicant’s release was therefore made conditional upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties and complying with detailed trial-related conditions.

Bharat Bhardwaj was directed to be released in Crime No. 214/2026, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund, on furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The conditions required him, inter alia, not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on dates fixed by the trial court, to appear personally at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and to comply with consequences prescribed for misuse of bail or non-appearance.

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