Regular bail granted despite antecedents where the chargesheet is filed and trial is likely to be delayed.

On 09 June 2026, the police, acting on secret information regarding illegal liquor sale near Bhalsar Road, Mahasamund, apprehended the Applicant and allegedly seized 42 bottles of country-made liquor, each containing 180 ml, totalling 7,560 ml, from his possession.

Crime No. 340/2026 was registered at Police Station Mahasamund under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act. The Applicant was arrested on 10 June 2026. He denied the allegations and sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), contending that the seizure was only slightly above the prescribed small quantity, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial would take considerable time.

The State opposed bail, pointing to three criminal antecedents, including one conviction under Section 36(C) of the Excise Act and one pending case under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act. Out of ten prosecution witnesses, only one had been examined when the application was considered.

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 substantive offence was under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and seriousness of the allegation, the quantity of liquor allegedly seized, the period of custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, the progress and likely duration of the trial, and the material available in the case diary.

The Court also relied on the settled principle that bail proceedings should not involve a detailed examination of the merits of the prosecution case and that appropriate conditions may be imposed to secure the accused’s presence and prevent misuse of bail.

The Court found that the alleged recovery was 7,560 ml of country-made liquor and considered the quantity in the context of the bail application.

Although the State relied on the Applicant’s antecedents, the Court balanced that circumstance against the fact that the Applicant had remained in custody since 10 June 2026, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and only one of ten prosecution witnesses had been examined.

Since the trial was likely to take considerable time and the Court was not required to finally determine the merits at the bail stage, it concluded that continued incarceration was not warranted, subject to stringent conditions ensuring the Applicant’s attendance and cooperation with the trial.

The Applicant was required, inter alia, not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on each date, to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and to face consequences for absence or misuse of bail in accordance with law. A certified copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the trial court for compliance.