Regular bail granted under Section 34(2) Excise Act considering custody period and filing of charge-sheet.

The applicant was arrested on February 3, 2026, following a police raid near Agroha Colony based on an informant's tip regarding the illegal sale of liquor.

Police seized 56 bottles of country-made liquor (totaling 10.080 liters) valued at ₹5,600 from the applicant's possession.

Consequently, the applicant was charged under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated and highlighted that his sole criminal antecedent, a case under Section 34(1) of the same Act, had already been disposed of.

The State opposed bail, citing the existence of this previous criminal record.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the offense, the period of detention, and the status of the investigation.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides the High Court with discretionary power to grant regular bail.

The substantive charge was governed by Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, which penalizes the possession of illegal liquor.

The court integrated procedural safeguards and penalties for non-compliance during the bail period under Sections 84, 209, 269, and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and BNSS.

In exercising its discretion, the Court examined the gravity of the offense alongside the duration of the applicant’s judicial custody, which commenced on February 3, 2026.

The Court noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed, signifying the completion of the investigation, and observed that the trial was likely to be protracted.

While the State raised concerns regarding the applicant's criminal history, the Court found that the specific circumstances—including the volume of liquor seized and the disposal of the previous case—warranted the grant of bail.

To mitigate the risk of absconding or trial delay, the Court imposed stringent conditions, including mandatory attendance at trial milestones and a prohibition on seeking adjournments when witnesses are present.

The holding is subject to strict conditions: the applicant must file an undertaking not to seek adjournments during evidence, must appear personally for the framing of charges and recording of statements, and must comply with all trial dates.

Failure to comply with these conditions authorizes the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty and initiate proceedings under Sections 209 or 269 of the BNS.