Regular bail granted on grounds of parity, absence of criminal antecedents, and filing of charge-sheet.

The applicant, Birbal Verma, was arrested on December 18, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 606/2025 at Police Station Dongargarh.

The prosecution alleged that 62.64 bulk liters of illicit liquor were seized from the applicant following a secret tip.

He was charged under Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the C.G. Excise Act and Sections 339, 336(3), and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) after the charge-sheet was filed.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering his period of incarceration, the nature of the offense, and the lack of criminal antecedents.

2. Whether the principle of parity applies given that a similarly situated co-accused was previously granted bail.

The court exercised its discretionary power under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, for the grant of regular bail.

It considered the sentencing guidelines under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, which stipulates a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum of three years.

The court also applied the principle of judicial parity, referencing its own order in Rajpal Bhatia v. State of Chhattisgarh (MCRC No. 782 of 2026), where a co-accused in the same crime was granted relief.

The court weighed the prosecution's objection regarding the quantity of illicit liquor (62.64 bulk liters) against the applicant's circumstances.

It noted that the applicant had no prior criminal record and had been in custody since December 18, 2025.

The court highlighted that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed, suggesting that the applicant’s continued detention was unnecessary as the trial would likely be protracted.

Crucially, the court found the applicant’s case to be at par with co-accused Rajpal Bhatia, who was granted bail on February 26, 2026.

Consequently, the court determined that the nature of the allegations, combined with the procedural status of the case, favored the applicant’s release.

The court ordered the applicant's release upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The holding was subject to specific conditions: (i) the applicant must not seek adjournments during the evidence stage; (ii) he must appear at all trial dates; and (iii) any violation of bail liberties or failure to appear may result in the cancellation of bail under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS.