Regular bail granted in excise case after charge-sheet filing, considering prolonged custody and anticipated trial delay.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 37/2026 registered at Police Station Manpur, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, for offences under Sections 34(2) and 59-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that he was transporting a large consignment of liquor in an Ashok Leyland vehicle without valid permits or documents.

The seized liquor allegedly comprised Royal Stag, Goa Whisky, Strong Beer and Kingfisher Strong Beer, totalling approximately 79,75,720 ml and valued at ₹50,89,125.

The applicant contended that the seizure had already been completed, no further recovery was required, the offence was non-violent, and he had been in custody since 7 June 2026.

The State opposed bail, submitting that the applicant had one criminal antecedent under the Arms Act and that the charge-sheet had been filed.

The application was the applicant’s first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

Sections 34(2) and 59-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, constituted the substantive statutory offences alleged against the applicant; the applicant argued that Section 59-A restricts anticipatory bail in specified excise cases and does not bar consideration of a post-arrest regular-bail application.

The Court applied the established bail principles requiring consideration of the nature of the accusation, the applicant’s period of custody, the stage of investigation, criminal antecedents, the likelihood of delay in trial and the possibility of securing the accused’s presence through conditions.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

After perusing the case diary, the Court treated the filing of the charge-sheet as a significant circumstance indicating that continued custodial detention was no longer necessary for investigation.

Although the applicant had one antecedent under the Arms Act and was accused of possessing a very large quantity of liquor, the Court considered that he had remained in custody since 7 June 2026 and that the trial was likely to take time.

Balancing these factors against the prosecution’s objections, the Court concluded that the applicant was entitled to bail.

His release was safeguarded through conditions requiring his presence before the trial court, restricting unnecessary adjournments, mandating personal appearance at key stages, and permitting action in the event of misuse of bail.

The applicant, Balram Dangi, was directed to be released on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The Court imposed conditions relating to non-seeking of adjournments when witnesses are present, appearance before the trial court, personal attendance at opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and consequences for absence or misuse of bail.

The trial court was requested to make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial within six months from receipt of the certified order, subject to there being no legal impediment.