Regular bail granted despite criminal antecedents after charge-sheet filing and prolonged pre-trial detention.

On 9 July 2026, the Excise Officer, Excise Circle, Sarangarh, allegedly received secret information that the applicant was in possession of liquor. An Excise team conducted a raid and allegedly recovered 45 litres of Mahua liquor and Mahua Lahan from the applicant, leading to registration of Crime No. 41/2026 for offences under Sections 34(1)(A)(f), 34(2), and 59-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The applicant had remained in custody since 9 July 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed. He disclosed five criminal antecedents: three under the Excise Act—two disposed of with fine and one pending—and two preventive cases from 2024 and 2025.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant was a habitual offender.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, notwithstanding the alleged recovery and his criminal antecedents?

Whether the applicant’s custody since 9 July 2026, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial justified his release on bail?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail in appropriate cases.

It also considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offences under Sections 34(1)(A)(f), 34(2), and 59-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, the quantity of the alleged contraband, the period of detention, the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s antecedents, and the anticipated duration of the trial.

The bail decision was made without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court weighed the prosecution’s allegations and the applicant’s antecedents against the fact that he had been in custody since 9 July 2026 and that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Although the Court took note of the alleged quantity of liquor and Mahua Lahan and the applicant’s criminal history, it considered that the trial was likely to take some time. These circumstances, viewed cumulatively, persuaded the Court that continued detention was not necessary at that stage.

The Court therefore exercised its discretion under Section 483 BNSS in favour of bail, expressly refraining from commenting on the merits of the case.

The applicant was directed to be released on regular bail upon execution of a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The applicant was required to: (i) refrain from influencing or threatening persons acquainted with the facts of the case; (ii) not prejudice a fair and expeditious trial; and (iii) appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until conclusion of the trial.

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