Regular bail granted despite criminal antecedents where charge-sheet is filed and trial is likely to be prolonged.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 103/2026 registered at Police Station Dharsiwa, District Raipur, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

Acting on secret information, the police conducted a raid and allegedly seized 10.800 bulk litres of country-made liquor from the applicant’s possession.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He had been in custody since 18 February 2026, and the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The applicant had eight criminal antecedents, six of which had been disposed of, while two cases registered in 2023 and 2024 under Sections 323, 325 and 506/34 of the IPC and Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act were pending.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the alleged contraband had been seized from the applicant’s possession.

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 Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915?

Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents and the alleged seizure of 10.800 bulk litres of country-made liquor justified denial of bail despite completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

The alleged offence was under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, concerning the unlawful possession of the seized liquor.

In exercising its bail jurisdiction, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the period of custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the probable duration of the trial.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court acknowledged the alleged recovery of 10.800 bulk litres of country-made liquor and the applicant’s eight criminal antecedents, including two pending cases involving IPC and NDPS Act offences.

However, six antecedent cases had already been disposed of, the applicant had remained in custody since 18 February 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed, indicating that the investigation was complete.

Since the trial was likely to take considerable time, the Court held that continued incarceration was not justified at the bail stage.

Balancing the seriousness of the allegation and the applicant’s antecedents against the completed investigation and prolonged custody, the Court exercised its discretion in favour of granting regular bail.

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

The applicant was restrained from influencing or threatening witnesses, was required not to prejudice a fair and expeditious trial, and was directed to appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until conclusion of the trial.

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