Regular bail granted for excise offence considering custody period despite pending criminal antecedent.

The applicant filed the first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following his arrest on February 27, 2026

The prosecution alleged that acting on secret information, police Raided the applicant’s courtyard in Village Chhote Gumda and seized 51 liters of illegal Mahua liquor

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

The applicant’s counsel argued he was falsely implicated and had no criminal record

the State counsel opposed bail, noting that a charge-sheet had been filed and the applicant had one prior criminal antecedent under the Excise Act

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the nature of the offense, the quantity of liquor seized, and his prior criminal record under the C.G. Excise Act.

Section 34(2) and 59(a) of the C.G. Excise Act, noting the prescribed punishment ranges from a minimum of one year to a maximum of three years

The application was governed by Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the High Court's power to grant bail

the principle that bail may be granted even with criminal antecedents if the investigation (charge-sheet) is complete and a prolonged trial is anticipated

procedural requirements under Sections 269 (non-appearance), 84 (proclamation for person absconding), 209 (failure to appear), and 351 (recording of statement) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and BNSS respectively

The court balanced the gravity of the allegations and the existence of one criminal antecedent against the duration of the applicant’s pretrial detention and the procedural status of the case

The court noted that the applicant had been in custody since February 27, 2026, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed before the competent court

Despite the State’s contention that the applicant was a habitual offender, the court determined that since the trial was likely to take significant time to conclude, continued incarceration was not warranted provided strict conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant’s participation in the legal process

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant’s regular appearance before the trial court, a prohibition against seeking unnecessary adjournments, and strict compliance with procedural mandates under the BNSS and BNS

The court clarified that any abuse of liberty or failure to appear would empower the trial court to initiate proceedings under Sections 209 and 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita