Prolonged judicial custody and delayed trial justify regular bail despite the existence of criminal antecedents.

The police, acting on an informant's tip on 09.01.2026, raided the residence of co-accused Amar Yadu and recovered 8.28 bulk litres of liquor.

In a memorandum statement, Yadu implicated Nitesh Ratre, from whom 9 bulk litres were recovered. Ratre's subsequent memorandum statement implicated the applicant, Sarjaan Gendre, alleging he was part of a group purchasing liquor for resale at a profit.

Based on this, the police recovered 40 quarters (7.200 bulk litres) from the applicant’s possession. The applicant was arrested on 09.01.2026 for offences under the C.G. Excise Act and the BNS.

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated solely on the basis of memorandum statements without independent corroboration and noted that he had been in custody for over two months.

The State opposed bail, citing four previous criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the evidence, the quantity of liquor seized, and the duration of pre-trial detention.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the discretionary power to grant regular bail.

It considered Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, which penalizes the illegal possession and sale of bulk liquor, and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court also referenced procedural safeguards and trial obligations under Sections 269 (non-appearance), 84 (proclamation for person absconding), 209 (failure to appear), and 351 (recording of statement) of the BNSS to impose conditions on the applicant's liberty.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offence alongside the procedural status of the case. It noted that the applicant had been in judicial custody since 09.01.2026 and that the investigation was yet to result in a charge-sheet.

Despite the State’s objection regarding the applicant’s four criminal antecedents, the Court emphasized that the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude.

The reasoning suggests that the relatively small quantity of liquor seized (7.2 bulk litres) and the prolonged detention outweighed the prosecution's concerns regarding antecedents, provided that strict conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's participation in the trial.

The Court held that the period of detention and the early stage of the trial proceedings warranted the grant of bail.

The relief was made subject to several conditions, including: (i) an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments; (ii) mandatory presence on all trial dates; (iii) personal presence during charge framing and recording of statements; and (iv) the risk of bail cancellation under BNSS provisions if the liberty is misused.