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

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 445/2026 registered at Police Station Jamul, District Durg, for an offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

On 27 June 2026, acting on secret information during town patrolling, the police raided the applicant’s residence at Village Nardha and allegedly recovered 8.100 bulk litres of country-made liquor and ₹2,200 from his possession.

The applicant was arrested on 28 June 2026 and remained in judicial custody thereafter.

He denied the allegations, contending that the liquor was recovered from a house occupied by several persons and was not in his exclusive possession; he also alleged false implication due to prior enmity and submitted that he was the sole breadwinner of his family.

The State opposed bail, relying principally on the applicant’s five previous criminal antecedents.

This was the applicant’s first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to an accused in custody, subject to appropriate conditions.

The alleged substantive offence was under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, concerning unlawful possession or dealing in the prescribed quantity of liquor.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the period of detention, the procedural stage of the case, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the probable duration of the trial.

Bail was made subject to conditions intended to secure the applicant’s presence, prevent adjournments, and regulate misuse of the liberty granted.

The Court considered the overall facts and circumstances, including the nature and gravity of the alleged excise offence, the applicant’s custody since 28 June 2026, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time.

Although the State relied on five criminal antecedents, the Court found the cumulative circumstances sufficient to warrant bail.

The applicant’s contentions regarding non-exclusive possession and false implication were noted, but the order does not record a conclusive determination on those issues.

Balancing the accusation against the period of incarceration and the anticipated delay in trial, the Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 BNSS in favour of release on bail.

The applicant was required to undertake not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, remain present before the trial court on scheduled dates, comply with proceedings concerning non-appearance or misuse of bail, and personally appear on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS.

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