Regular bail granted despite criminal antecedent considering charge-sheet filing and duration of incarceration.

The applicant was arrested on December 31, 2025, following a search of his house and shop by the Excise Sub-Inspector, Circle Wadrafnagar, which resulted in the seizure of 38.07 liters of country-made and English liquor.

An FIR (Crime No. 89/2025) was registered for offenses under Sections 34(1)(क), 34(2), 36, and 59(क) of the C.G. Excise Act.

The applicant moved for regular bail, arguing that he was falsely implicated, the liquor was not seized from his possession, and that the maximum punishment for the offense is three years.

The State opposed the bail, contending that the applicant is a habitual offender with one criminal antecedent under the Excise Act.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of his criminal history and the period of incarceration.

Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, which provides for a punishment range of one to three years.

The principle that the filing of a charge-sheet and the likelihood of a protracted trial are significant factors in favor of granting bail, even where a single criminal antecedent exists, provided the antecedent is still pending trial.

The Court weighed the nature and gravity of the allegations against the procedural status of the case and noted that the investigation was substantially complete, as the charge-sheet had already been filed before the competent court.

Although the State highlighted one criminal antecedent, the Court observed that this prior case is still pending trial and does not sufficiently establish the applicant as a habitual offender to the extent of denying liberty.

Considering the applicant had been in custody since December 31, 2025, and that the trial would not conclude in the near future, the Court determined that further pretrial detention was not warranted.

To mitigate risks of absconding or trial delay, the Court opted to impose stringent conditions regarding court attendance and conduct.

The holding is subject to several conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments when witnesses are present, must appear on all fixed dates, and must specifically be present for the opening of the case, framing of charges, and recording of statements under Section 351 of BNSS; failure to comply would allow the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty and proceed under Sections 209 or 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.