Regular bail granted after charge-sheet filing, considering clean antecedents, custody duration, and likely trial delay.

On 26 June 2026, police officials of Police Station Vidhansabha, Raipur, allegedly received information that the applicant was transporting country-made liquor on a motorcycle.

Upon interception and search, the police allegedly recovered 150 sealed pouches of “Masala Shole” country-made liquor, each containing 180 ml, totalling 27 bulk litres and valued at approximately ₹15,000, along with the motorcycle.

The applicant was arrested and Crime No. 219/2026 was registered under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, asserting false implication, absence of criminal antecedents, completion of investigation, and likely delay in trial.

The State opposed bail, principally submitting 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, in a prosecution under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, period of custody, and likelihood of 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 bail, and considered the offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, for which the applicant was prosecuted and which, according to the applicant, carries a minimum sentence of one year and a maximum sentence of three years.

The Court applied the general bail principles requiring consideration of the nature and gravity of the allegation, the accused’s antecedents, the stage of investigation, the period of custody, and the probable duration of trial.

Bail was made subject to conditions designed to secure the applicant’s attendance, prevent adjournment and misuse of liberty, and facilitate completion of the trial.

The Court considered the alleged recovery of 27 bulk litres of country-made liquor and the gravity of the Section 34(2) Excise Act allegation, but found the circumstances favourable to bail because the applicant had no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and he had remained in custody since 26 June 2026.

Since investigation was complete and the trial was likely to take time, continued pre-trial detention was not considered necessary, subject to safeguards ensuring the applicant’s presence and cooperation during trial.

The Court therefore exercised its discretion under Section 483 BNSS in favour of the applicant.

The bail conditions required him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on each date fixed by the trial court, 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 authorised the trial court to take action in accordance with law in the event of absence, misuse of bail, or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.

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