Regular bail granted for excise offence as applicant lacked specific antecedents under the Excise Act.

The applicant was arrested on 12.01.2026 in connection with Crime No. 218/2026 following a police search that allegedly recovered 8.10 bulk litres of illegal country-made liquor from his residence

The applicant was charged under Sections 34(1), 59(a), and 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act

The applicant moved this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending false implication and noting that while he has 12 prior criminal antecedents (9 IPC cases and 3 Gambling Act cases), he has no prior record under the Excise Act

The State opposed bail, labeling the applicant a habitual offender

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering his criminal antecedents and the duration of his pretrial detention.

The Court applied the provisions of Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail

It considered the penal provisions of Sections 34(1), 34(2), and 59(a) of the C.G. Excise Act, noting that Section 34(2) carries a prescribed punishment range of one to three years

The Court also observed procedural requirements under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Sections 209 and 269, and Section 351 of the BNSS regarding the conduct of the accused during trial

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations against the nature of the applicant's criminal history. It observed that although the applicant possesses 12 antecedents, none are related to the Excise Act, which mitigated the State's claim of him being a habitual offender in this specific legal context

The Court further noted that the quantity of liquor seized (8.10 bulk litres) was relatively small and that the applicant had already been in custody since 12.01.2026

Given that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is expected to take significant time, the Court reasoned that continued incarceration was unnecessary, provided stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant’s presence and prevent the abuse of liberty

The Court allowed the bail application and ordered the release of the applicant on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties. The holding was conditioned upon the applicant’s undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments, his mandatory presence at all trial stages pursuant to Section 351 of the BNSS, and warnings regarding proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS in the event of default