Facts
The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 220/2026, registered at Police Station Gariyaband, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, after six bulk litres of country-made liquor were allegedly recovered from his possession.
Source reference: para. 1–2He had one live criminal antecedent of a similar nature, registered in 2025.
Source reference: para. 3–4The applicant had been in custody since 7 September 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed.
Source reference: para. 3–4He sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Source reference: para. 3–4Issues
1. Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the alleged recovery and his similar criminal antecedent.
Source reference: para. 3–62. Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, the period already spent in custody, and the anticipated time to conclude the trial supported release on bail.
Source reference: para. 3, 6Law Applied
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was invoked as the basis for the High Court’s consideration of the regular-bail application.
Source reference: para. 1The alleged offence was punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.
Source reference: para. 1The Court identified no precedent or further legal test in its order.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The Court weighed the alleged recovery of six litres of country-made liquor and the applicant’s similar live antecedent against the fact that the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had remained in custody since 7 September 2026, and the trial was likely to take time.
Source reference: para. 6On that balance, it considered regular bail appropriate, notwithstanding the antecedent.
Source reference: para. 6Holding
The Court allowed the bail application and directed the applicant’s release on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threats or promises to persons acquainted with the case; conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; and failure to appear on each date fixed by the trial court until disposal.
Source reference: para. 7The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and that the trial court must decide the case on its own merits.
Source reference: para. 8Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231
Original Court PDF
GAJENDRA NISHADvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
![A police constable cannot be removed for unauthorized absence without a Rule 359-compliant inquiry.. Mohammad Sidiq Khan vs D/o Home Ut Of Jammu & Kashmir. CAT - ['Srinagar']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/a-police-constable-cannot-be-removed-for-unauthorized-absence-without-a-rule-359-compliant-7b43fc316bd94f22a62676153bbc9d54.webp)
![A Review DPC lacks authority to determine or alter inter se seniority.. SAURABH KUMAR vs REVENUE. CAT - ['Patna']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/a-review-dpc-lacks-authority-to-determine-or-alter-inter-se-seniority-4b21640f20af46fcabdfc8273d2ce959.webp)