Regular bail granted citing prolonged custody and anticipated trial delay despite existing criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Chandrakant Sen, was arrested on December 18, 2025, following a police raid on the residence of co-accused Birbal Verma.

While 62.64 bulk liters of illicit liquor were seized from the co-accused, the police recovered 1,860 liquor brand stickers, 85 labels, iron articles, scissors, and a mobile phone from the applicant.

The applicant was charged under Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the C.G. Excise Act and Sections 339, 366(3), and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The applicant contended he was a laborer present at the site for work and noted that of his four criminal antecedents, he had been acquitted in one and paid fines in the others.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of the seizure and the duration of his pretrial detention.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court to grant regular bail.

Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the C.G. Excise Act regarding the illegal possession and sale of liquor, and Sections 339 (theft/dishonest misappropriation), 366(3) (counterfeiting), and 340(2) (possession of counterfeit marks) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The Court’s decision was guided by established judicial discretion regarding the nature of allegations, the period of detention (since 18/12/2025), and the anticipated length of the trial.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations alongside the specific role attributed to the applicant.

While the State opposed bail citing the seizure of liquor-related labels and stickers and the applicant’s criminal history, the Court noted that the primary seizure of illicit liquor was made from the co-accused, not the applicant.

The Court further considered the applicant's explanation of his criminal antecedents, noting that past matters had either resulted in acquittal or were resolved through the payment of fines.

Applying the principle of liberty, the Court observed that the applicant had been in custody since December 18, 2025, and that the trial's conclusion would likely be delayed.

Consequently, the Court found the applicant eligible for bail subject to stringent conditions to ensure his cooperation with the judicial process.

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant's undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments and his mandatory presence at crucial stages of the trial, including the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

Failure to comply or misuse of the liberty of bail would empower the trial court to initiate proceedings under Sections 209 or 269 of the BNS.