Regular bail granted after charge-sheet filing where continued custody and delayed trial were anticipated.

The applicants were arrested in connection with Crime No. 111/2026 registered at Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

Acting on secret information, the police conducted a raid and allegedly seized 18 litres of mahua liquor contained in 90 plastic pouches from the applicants.

The applicants claimed false implication and contended that the liquor was not recovered from their exclusive possession.

Applicant Biruram Yadav had criminal antecedents, including matters under the Excise Act and the IPC, in which he had been acquitted, while applicant Lalit Kumar Nayak had no criminal antecedent.

The charge-sheet had been filed, and both applicants had remained in custody since 28 July 2026.

This was their first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the applicants 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 filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, the nature of the alleged recovery, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial justified release on bail despite the State’s objection regarding possible absconding?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

It considered the offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, for which the applicants’ counsel stated that the prescribed punishment ranges from a minimum of one year to a maximum of three years.

The Court applied the established bail considerations of the nature and gravity of the allegation, the antecedents of the accused, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, and the likely duration of trial.

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

The Court balanced the allegation of seizure of 18 litres of mahua liquor against the applicants’ claim that the liquor was not in their exclusive possession.

It noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the need for continued custodial detention, and that the applicants had been in custody since 28 July 2026, while the trial was likely to take further time.

Although Biruram Yadav had criminal antecedents, the Court took note that the cases referred to had resulted in acquittal; Lalit Kumar Nayak had no criminal antecedent.

The State’s apprehension that the applicants might abscond was not considered sufficient to outweigh these circumstances, particularly when appropriate bail conditions could be imposed.

It directed that, upon execution of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial Court, the applicants be released on bail.

The release was subject to conditions requiring them to appear for police interrogation when required, refrain from influencing or threatening witnesses, and avoid conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the determination of the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.