Regular bail granted after chargesheet filing, given no antecedents and likely prolonged trial.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 38/2026 registered at Police Station Excise Circle Masturi, District Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 34(1)(a), 34(1)(f), 34(2) and 59(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

On 23 June 2026, during patrolling, the police received information that an unidentified person had allegedly kept liquor illegally for sale. The police seized 13 bulk litres of liquor and 45 kg of mahua lahan allegedly from the applicant’s possession, following which the FIR was registered.

The applicant denied conscious and exclusive possession, challenged the seizure and measurement procedure, asserted that the seizure witnesses were procured, and stated that he had no criminal antecedents and had remained in custody since 23 June 2026.

The State opposed bail but acknowledged that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and that the charge-sheet had been filed.

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

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the allegations under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, the disputed seizure, and the surrounding circumstances.

Whether the applicant’s custody since 23 June 2026, absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial justified grant of bail.

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

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 34(1)(a), 34(1)(f), 34(2) and 59(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

In determining bail, the Court considered the relevant circumstances, including the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of custody, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the likelihood that the trial would take time.

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

After examining the case diary and hearing both sides, the Court treated the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, his custody since 23 June 2026, and the expected delay in trial as circumstances favouring release on bail.

Although the prosecution alleged recovery of illicit liquor and mahua lahan, the Court found that continued detention was not necessary at that stage, particularly because investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been submitted.

The applicant’s release was therefore considered appropriate, subject to conditions designed to secure his appearance, prevent delay in the proceedings, and address any misuse of bail.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to appear before the trial court on every date either personally or through counsel, to comply with proceedings concerning non-appearance or proclamation, and to remain personally present at the 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.