Regular bail granted after chargesheet filing where the accused had no criminal antecedents and trial would likely be prolonged.

On 3 July 2026, acting on informer information, the Excise Police searched the applicant’s house at Odhaka Ratbahiniya Para, District Raipur, in the presence of witnesses.

The search allegedly resulted in the seizure of 50 and 24 quarter bottles, totalling 13.32 bulk litres of country liquor valued at ₹7,400.

The applicant could not produce supporting documents pursuant to notice under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Crime No. 74/2026 was registered under Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the Excise Act.

The applicant, who had been in custody since 3 July 2026, filed her first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

She asserted false implication, absence of criminal antecedents, and failure of the prosecution to establish the ingredients of Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

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

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, while facing prosecution under Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the Excise Act.

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

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the Excise Act.

In exercising its bail jurisdiction, the Court considered the relevant circumstances, including completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents, the period of custody, and the likelihood that the trial would take time.

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

The Court considered the allegations arising from the seizure of 13.32 bulk litres of country liquor, but, at the bail stage, assessed the applicant’s entitlement primarily on established bail considerations rather than undertaking a final determination of guilt.

The charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, she had remained in custody since 3 July 2026, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Balancing these factors against the prosecution’s opposition, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted and that the applicant could be released subject to safeguards ensuring her presence and proper conduct during trial.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring her not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to appear before the trial court on scheduled dates, and to remain personally present for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of her statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The order also authorised appropriate proceedings in the event of absence, misuse of bail, or failure to comply with a proclamation.