Regular bail granted after charge-sheet filing where antecedents were disposed and trial delay was likely.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 44/2026 registered by the Excise Circle, Chichola, District Rajnandgaon, for alleged offences under Sections 34(2), 36(F) and 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act

Acting on secret information, Excise officials searched premises near the Electricity Office Road, Village Gaindatola, and allegedly recovered 480 quarter bottles of Maharashtra-manufactured country liquor, equivalent to 86.400 bulk litres, without a valid licence or permit

The charge-sheet had been filed and the applicant remained in judicial custody from 27 June 2026

The applicant claimed false implication and disputed his exclusive and conscious possession of the premises, relying on an alleged discrepancy between the Patwari map, which indicated ownership by Khalil Ahmad, and the possession memo prepared in the applicant’s name

He also had four criminal antecedents under the Gambling Act and Excise Act, all of which had been disposed of

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the alleged recovery, the dispute regarding possession of the premises, and his criminal antecedents

Whether the applicant should be released on bail after filing of the charge-sheet, considering the period of custody and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial

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

It considered the general bail principles concerning the nature of the accusation, the prosecution material, the applicant’s antecedents, the stage of the proceedings, the period of custody, and the likelihood of the trial being concluded within a reasonable time

The alleged offences were examined under Sections 34(2), 36(F) and 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the immediate need for custodial detention, and that the applicant had remained in custody since 27 June 2026

Although the applicant had four disposed-of criminal antecedents, the Court treated them as disclosed circumstances rather than a bar to bail

The Court also considered that the trial was likely to take some time and, on the overall facts and circumstances, concluded that continued detention was not necessary pending trial

The Court therefore granted bail without finally determining the disputed questions concerning ownership or exclusive and conscious possession of the premises.

The applicant, Guljari Soni, was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court

The bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial Court, to comply with proceedings in the event of proclamation, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial Court for compliance