Regular bail granted considering completed investigation, seizure quantity, custody period, and the applicant’s 70% disability.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 61/2026 registered by the Divisional Flying Squad, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 34(1)(A), 34(2) and 59-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The prosecution alleged that, on 15 July 2026, 30 litres of handmade Mahua liquor—contained in fifteen polythene pouches of two litres each—was seized from a room in the applicant’s residential premises at Village Pali.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending false implication, procedural irregularities, absence of exclusive possession, 70% disability in his leg, completion of investigation, and filing of the charge-sheet.

The State opposed bail, relying principally on the alleged recovery and the applicant’s four Excise Act antecedents, including two pending cases.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the alleged seizure of 30 litres of handmade Mahua liquor and the offences under Sections 34(1)(A), 34(2) and 59-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

2. Whether the applicant’s period of detention, filing of the charge-sheet, 70% disability, and criminal antecedents justified the grant or denial of bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, along with Sections 34(1)(A), 34(2) and 59-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, under which the alleged possession and related conduct concerning illicit liquor constituted the charged offences.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the quantity seized, the period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s medical or disability condition, and his criminal antecedents, without conducting a final assessment of the merits.

The Court considered the alleged recovery of 30 litres of handmade Mahua liquor from premises under the applicant’s possession, the seriousness of the Excise Act offences, and the State’s objection based on the applicant’s antecedents.

Nevertheless, the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicant had remained in custody since 15 July 2026, and the applicant’s 70% disability was a relevant humanitarian and personal circumstance.

Balancing these factors against the quantity of liquor seized and the antecedents, the Court found that continued detention was not warranted and granted bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The applicant was directed to be released on regular bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

He was restrained from influencing or threatening witnesses, required not to prejudice a fair and expeditious trial, and directed to appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until conclusion of the trial.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial Court for compliance.