Regular bail denied for repeated excise antecedents and misuse of earlier bail.

In brief

The question

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail in light of the alleged seizure, the status of the investigation and trial, and the arguments raised in his support.

The court held

The Court held that the case was not fit for regular bail and rejected the application.

It also directed

The operative paragraph describes the application as one under Section 183 of the BNSS, although the application is identified earlier as being under Section 483.

The rejection concerned Crime No. 38/2026, registered under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

01Facts

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 38/2026, registered for an alleged offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

¶ 1

The prosecution alleged that, on 20 June 2026, police raided the applicant’s shop following secret information and seized 8.100 bulk litres of country-made liquor; a charge-sheet had been filed.

¶ 2

The applicant argued that the liquor was seized from an open place, that seizure witnesses had not supported the prosecution, and that he had been in custody since 20 June 2026.

¶ 3

He disclosed three Excise Act antecedents: one disposed of and two pending.

¶ 3

The State opposed bail, describing the applicant as a habitual offender.

¶ 4

02Issues

i.Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail in light of the alleged seizure, the status of the investigation and trial, and the arguments raised in his support.

¶ 2–3, 5

ii.Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents and alleged misuse of previously granted bail warranted refusal of regular bail.

¶ 4, 6

03Law Applied

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was invoked as the basis for the regular-bail application.

¶ 1

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

¶ 1

The Court referred to Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 8 SCC 559, noting that the Supreme Court had cancelled bail in that case on the ground of the accused’s previous antecedents.

¶ 6

The order does not set out a broader test for bail or the full reasoning in Deepak Yadav.

¶ 6

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483 Section 183

04Reasoning

Although the applicant relied on the filing of the charge-sheet, his custody, and the seizure witnesses’ lack of support, the Court considered the alleged quantity of liquor and, in particular, the applicant’s three similar Excise Act antecedents.

¶ 3, 6

It noted that two antecedent cases remained pending and found that the applicant had misused bail previously granted to him.

¶ 6

Relying on these circumstances and its reference to Deepak Yadav, the Court concluded that the applicant’s record weighed against release.

¶ 6

05Holding

The Court held that the case was not fit for regular bail and rejected the application.

¶ 6–7

The operative paragraph describes the application as one under Section 183 of the BNSS, although the application is identified earlier as being under Section 483.

¶ 1, 7

The rejection concerned Crime No. 38/2026, registered under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

¶ 7

LawLens.Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF