Regular bail granted after chargesheet, considering prolonged trial and acquittal in one similar antecedent.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 260/2026 registered at Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

The prosecution alleged that, pursuant to secret information received on 21 June 2026, police seized 5.760 litres of country-made liquor and 1.300 litres of beer, totalling 7.060 litres, from the applicant’s shop.

The applicant claimed false implication and disputed ownership of the seized liquor.

He had been in custody since 21 June 2026, had two similar criminal antecedents, had been acquitted in one, and faced a pending case in the other in which the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The State opposed bail on the ground that illicit liquor had been seized from the applicant’s shop.

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 Excise Act.

Whether the applicant’s custody period, filing of the charge-sheet, anticipated delay in trial, and criminal antecedents justified release on bail.

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

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegation, the period of custody, the status of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial, and the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

Bail was granted without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, subject to conditions securing the applicant’s attendance and preventing misuse of liberty.

The Court acknowledged the prosecution’s allegation that illicit liquor had been seized from the applicant’s shop but assessed the bail application on the overall circumstances rather than conclusively determining guilt.

The applicant had remained in custody since 21 June 2026, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Although he had two similar antecedents, one had ended in acquittal and the other was pending after filing of the charge-sheet.

Balancing these factors against the nature of the accusation, the Court found it appropriate to release the applicant on bail, expressly without commenting on the merits.

The bail was made subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to comply with proceedings arising from any failure to appear, 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.