Regular bail granted despite antecedents where investigation is complete and trial is likely to be delayed.

The applicant, Tej Kumar Bhoi, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 100/2026 registered at Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 24 March 2026, the police intercepted the applicant and a co-accused and recovered 70 bulk litres of handmade liquor from an unregistered vehicle.

The applicant denied involvement and alleged false implication and fabrication of the seizure memo.

He relied on the filing of the charge-sheet, the examination of four out of eleven prosecution witnesses, the fact that some witnesses had not supported the prosecution, the grant of bail to the co-accused, and the likelihood of delay in the trial.

He had remained in custody since 24 March 2026 and had three criminal antecedents, none under the Excise Act.

The State opposed bail on the grounds of the alleged recovery and the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act?

Whether the applicant’s alleged recovery of 70 bulk litres of handmade liquor, criminal antecedents, period of custody, completion of investigation, and anticipated delay in trial 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.

The alleged substantive offence was under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, concerning the unlawful possession or transportation of liquor beyond the prescribed quantity.

In deciding bail, the Court considered established principles including the completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the period of incarceration, the likely duration of the trial, the nature of the alleged offence, and the applicant’s criminal antecedents, without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court found that the investigation had been completed and the charge-sheet had already been filed, thereby reducing the need for further custodial detention.

It also considered that the applicant had remained in custody since 24 March 2026 and that the trial was likely to take considerable time, with only four of eleven prosecution witnesses examined.

Although the applicant had three criminal antecedents, the Court noted that they were registered under the IPC and not under the Excise Act.

Balancing these circumstances against the prosecution’s objection based on the alleged recovery of 70 bulk litres of liquor and the antecedents, the Court concluded that the applicant had made out a case for regular bail.

The Court expressly clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.

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

The bail 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 trial.