Regular bail granted considering prolonged custody, charge-sheet filing, and disposed criminal antecedents.

On 17 July 2026, acting on secret information, the police raided the area in front of the applicant’s house and allegedly seized 39 quarters of country-made liquor totalling 7.020 bulk litres, 11.5 litres of Mahua liquor, and ₹500 allegedly representing sale proceeds.

The applicant failed to produce documents for the liquor when required under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”). Crime No. 71/2026 was registered at Police Station Sanaud, District Balod, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, and the applicant was arrested on 17 July 2026.

He sought regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, contending that he was falsely implicated, that the charge-sheet had been filed, and that he had been in custody since the date of arrest.

His two previous Excise Act cases had already been disposed of—one by acquittal and the other upon payment of fine.

The State opposed bail on the grounds of the quantity seized and the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

Whether the quantity of liquor allegedly seized and the applicant’s previous Excise Act cases warranted rejection of bail, notwithstanding that the charge-sheet had been filed and the antecedent cases had been disposed of.

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

The alleged offence arose under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act concerning possession or dealing in illicit liquor beyond the prescribed quantity.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the quantity of liquor allegedly seized, the period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and the applicant’s criminal antecedents, including whether those antecedents had resulted in pending or concluded proceedings.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegation and the substantial quantity of liquor allegedly seized.

However, the applicant had remained in custody since 17 July 2026, and the charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the necessity for continued custodial detention.

Although the applicant had two previous Excise Act cases, both had been disposed of—one resulting in acquittal and the other in payment of fine.

The Court therefore treated the antecedents as explained and not sufficient, in the circumstances, to deny bail.

Balancing the alleged offence and quantity against the period of custody, completion of investigation, and status of the previous cases, the Court found that the applicant deserved release on regular bail.

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.

The release was subject to conditions that he would not influence or threaten witnesses, would not prejudice a fair and expeditious trial, and would appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until conclusion of the proceedings.

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