Regular bail granted under Excise Act despite past antecedent, citing charge-sheet filing and detention duration.

During a police patrol, authorities received information regarding the illegal possession of liquor for sale.

Upon reaching the site, police seized 18.0 bulk litres of country-made liquor from an open area.

The applicant, Ajay Sonwani, was arrested on February 2, 2026, as he could not produce valid documentation for the seized spirits.

He was charged under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act.

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail, arguing that he was falsely implicated, the liquor was not seized from his direct possession, and he had only one prior criminal antecedent from 2025 which is still pending trial.

The State opposed the application, contending that the applicant is a habitual offender.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering his period of incarceration and criminal history.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the High Court with the power to grant bail.

Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, which carries a punishment range of one to three years.

Section 84 (proclamation for person absconding), Section 269 (non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant), and Section 351 (recording of statement of accused) of the BNSS and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court evaluated the gravity of the allegations in light of the applicant's duration of custody since February 2, 2026.

It observed that the investigation had concluded with the filing of the charge-sheet, thereby reducing the risk of tampering with evidence.

Although the State highlighted a criminal antecedent, the Court noted it was a single instance under the Excise Act that had not yet resulted in a conviction.

Balancing the relatively short maximum sentence of three years against the likelihood that the trial would not conclude soon, the Court determined that continued pretrial detention was unnecessary.

To mitigate the risk of the applicant being a "habitual offender," the Court imposed strict conditions, including a prohibition on seeking adjournments when witnesses are present and a mandate for personal appearance during key trial stages like the framing of charges.

The Court held that the applicant must file an undertaking to not seek adjournments and must remain present on all trial dates.

The Court specifically directed that any default in appearance or breach of conditions would empower the trial court to initiate proceedings under Section 209 or Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and revoke the liberty of bail.