Regular bail granted after charge-sheet filing where custody is prolonged and trial conclusion is likely delayed.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 108/2026 registered at Police Station Suhela, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

According to the prosecution, police received secret information that two persons were transporting illegal country-made liquor on motorcycle No. CG-22-AE-6129 near Roshni Dhaba.

Upon interception and search, 42.300 bulk litres of liquor were allegedly seized.

The charge-sheet was filed before the competent court.

The applicant had remained in custody since 18 June 2026.

The applicant claimed false implication, no previous Excise Act antecedents, and delay in conclusion of trial; the State opposed bail on the ground that he had two criminal antecedents under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

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 filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of custody, absence of prior Excise Act antecedents, and the likelihood of delay in trial justified release on bail despite the State’s objection regarding other criminal antecedents.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, under which the alleged possession or transportation of the specified quantity of illicit liquor constitutes the charged offence and carries the applicable statutory punishment.

In exercising bail discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegation, the applicant’s antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, period of incarceration, and the probable time required for conclusion of trial.

The Court considered the allegation involving seizure of 42.300 bulk litres of country-made liquor, but found the circumstances favourable for bail because the investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had been in custody since 18 June 2026, and the trial was likely to take time.

Although the State referred to two criminal antecedents under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Court specifically noted that the applicant had no previous antecedents under the Excise Act.

Balancing the nature and gravity of the allegation against these mitigating circumstances, the Court held that continued detention was not warranted and that the applicant could be released subject to conditions securing his attendance and protecting the integrity of the trial.

The Court directed that Rahul Bharti be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The applicant was required not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on every 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 of the BNSS.

The order further authorised the trial court to take action in accordance with law if the applicant misused the liberty of bail or deliberately failed to appear.