Prolonged custody and likely trial delay justify regular bail despite a single criminal antecedent.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 116/2026 registered at Police Station Sankra, District Mahasamund, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

Acting on secret information, the police allegedly seized 25 bulk litres of handmade liquor from his possession.

The applicant claimed false implication, disputed exclusive possession, asserted that he had no criminal antecedents, and stated that he had been in custody since 19 June 2026.

The State opposed bail, contending that the liquor had been recovered from the applicant and that he had one criminal antecedent from 2023.

The charge-sheet had been filed, but the trial was likely to take time.

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

Whether the applicant’s alleged recovery of 25 bulk litres of handmade liquor, one prior criminal antecedent, period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and likely delay in conclusion of trial justified release on bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

The alleged offence was under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, for which the applicant’s counsel stated that the punishment ranges from a minimum of one year to a maximum of three years.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the period of incarceration, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likelihood of delay in trial.

Bail was subject to conditions securing the applicant’s attendance, preventing adjournments when witnesses were present, and permitting legal action in case of misuse of bail.

The Court found that the applicant had been in custody since 19 June 2026, that the charge-sheet had already been filed, and that the trial was likely to take additional time.

Although the State relied on the alleged recovery of 25 bulk litres of liquor and the applicant’s prior criminal antecedent, the Court noted that there was only one such antecedent, dating from 2023.

Balancing these circumstances against the nature and gravity of the allegation, the Court held that continued detention was not justified and that the applicant was entitled to regular bail.

The risk of non-cooperation or misuse of liberty was addressed through specific attendance and conduct conditions.

The Court directed that Manoj Lahre be released in Crime No. 116/2026 upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The bail conditions required him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial Court as directed, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS.

The order further provided for appropriate proceedings in the event of absence or misuse of bail, including action under Sections 269 and 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 84 BNSS, as applicable.