Regular bail granted under Section 34(2) Excise Act despite four antecedents, with only one pending.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 147/2026 registered at Police Station Rajhara, District Balod, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The prosecution alleged that, on 1 July 2026, the applicant was intercepted while carrying illicit liquor through a vegetable market, and 7.50 bulk litres of country-made liquor were seized from his possession.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, contending that he was innocent, had been in custody since 1 July 2026, and that the trial would take time to conclude.

He acknowledged four criminal antecedents, of which only one was pending.

The State opposed the application.

The High Court considered the case diary and heard both parties.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The prosecution concerned Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, relating to the alleged possession or transportation of illicit liquor; the applicant submitted that the provision prescribed a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum punishment of three years.

In exercising bail discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegation, the applicant’s period of incarceration, the likelihood of delay in trial, and his criminal antecedents.

The Court assessed the allegation of seizure of 7.50 bulk litres of country-made liquor against the applicant’s custodial status and the anticipated duration of the trial.

Although the allegation was considered along with the applicant’s four criminal antecedents, the Court noted that only one antecedent was presently pending.

Balancing these circumstances, particularly the applicant’s custody since 1 July 2026 and the likelihood that the trial would take time, the Court held that continued detention was not justified at that stage and that the applicant was entitled to bail.

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

The Court imposed conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court as directed, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The trial court was also authorized to proceed in accordance with law in the event of absence, misuse of bail, or non-compliance with the conditions.