Regular bail granted considering detention period, young age, seizure quantity, and likely trial delay.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 13/2026 registered at Police Station Excise Circle, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, for an alleged offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The prosecution alleged that, pursuant to secret information received on 10 July 2026, a raid was conducted at the applicant’s house, resulting in the seizure of 7.200 bulk litres of handmade liquor.

The applicant, aged about 23 years, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, asserting that he was innocent, was a poor villager, had remained in custody since 10 July 2026, and that the trial would take time.

The State opposed bail, pointing out that the applicant had one similar criminal antecedent.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and considered the allegation under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature and seriousness of the allegation, the material available on record, the applicant’s age, the period of custody, and the likelihood of the trial taking time, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court also imposed conditions to secure the applicant’s presence, prevent delay, and regulate misuse of bail, including conditions concerning adjournments, attendance, proclamation proceedings, and personal appearance at material stages of the trial.

The Court found that the alleged seizure was of 7.200 bulk litres of handmade liquor and that the applicant had remained in custody since 10 July 2026.

Balancing these circumstances against the State’s objection regarding one similar criminal antecedent, the Court considered the applicant’s young age and the likelihood that the trial would take time to conclude.

Without commenting on the merits of the case, it held that the circumstances justified extending the discretionary benefit of regular bail under Section 483 BNSS.

The risk of non-appearance or delay was addressed through stringent bail conditions.

The applicant was required, inter alia, not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court, to comply with proceedings relating to proclamation in case of misuse of bail, and to appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for information and compliance.