Regular bail granted despite criminal antecedents after charge-sheet filing and prolonged custody pending trial.

On 13 June 2026, the police received information that the applicant was allegedly in illegal possession of country-made liquor intended for sale.

A raid allegedly resulted in the seizure of 6.300 bulk litres of liquor from the applicant, leading to registration of Crime No. 335/2026 at Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

The applicant filed his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, asserting false implication and disputing the alleged seizure.

The State opposed bail, pointing to the applicant’s three criminal antecedents under the Excise Act and Gambling Act, two of which were pending, although the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The applicant had remained in custody since 13 June 2026.

Whether the applicant, accused of possessing 6.300 bulk litres of country-made liquor in violation of Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents outweighed the circumstances favouring bail, including completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, period of custody, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The alleged offence was punishable under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

In determining bail, the Court considered the completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the period of incarceration, the likelihood that the trial would take time, and the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

Bail was granted subject to conditions intended to secure the applicant’s attendance, prevent delay, and ensure compliance with the trial process.

The Court acknowledged that the applicant had three criminal antecedents, with one case disposed of and two pending, but also noted that this circumstance had been disclosed in the bail application and was not concealed.

Balancing the antecedents against the fact that the charge-sheet had already been submitted, that the applicant had been in custody since 13 June 2026, and that the trial was likely to take considerable time, the Court found continued detention unjustified at that stage.

The Court therefore exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS in favour of release, while imposing conditions requiring attendance before the trial court, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments, personal appearance at material stages, and compliance with proceedings in the event of misuse of bail.

The release was made subject to conditions requiring cooperation with the trial, appearance on the dates fixed, personal presence at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, along with consequences for default or misuse of bail.

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