Regular bail granted despite similar pending antecedents where charge-sheet was filed and trial would be delayed.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 51/2026 registered at Police Station Excise Circle, Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, for an offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

Acting on informer’s information, the police allegedly raided the applicant’s house and seized 6.400 bulk litres of hand-made liquor from his possession.

The applicant claimed false implication and relied on the fact that he had been in custody since 27 June 2026, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had two previous cases of a similar nature under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, both pending before the trial Court, although he had been granted bail in those cases.

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 two pending criminal antecedents involving similar excise offences disentitled him from bail, notwithstanding the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, and the anticipated delay in trial.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning the grant of regular bail.

The alleged substantive offence was under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, relating to the unlawful possession or dealing in intoxicating liquor.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the quantity of liquor allegedly seized, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, whether bail had been granted in the earlier cases, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, and the likely duration of the trial.

Bail was granted subject to conditions intended to prevent witness influence, interference with a fair trial, and non-appearance before the trial Court.

The Court acknowledged that 6.400 litres of hand-made liquor had allegedly been seized from the applicant and that he had two prior cases under the same statutory provision.

However, those cases were still pending and the applicant had already been granted bail in them.

Balancing these antecedents against the fact that the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had remained in custody since 27 June 2026, and the trial was likely to take considerable time, the Court found the case appropriate for grant of regular bail.

The Court therefore treated the pending antecedents as relevant but not conclusive against the applicant.

The Court directed that the applicant be released on regular bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.

The applicant was prohibited from inducing, threatening, or promising any person acquainted with the facts of the case; from acting prejudicially to a fair and expeditious trial; and was required to appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until disposal of the case.

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