Regular bail granted where alleged liquor recovery was not from the applicant’s personal possession.

On 19 June 2026, acting on information that liquor was being distilled and stored at the applicant’s house in Village Khedepar, the police conducted a raid and seized 75.230 bulk litres of country and mahua liquor, valued at approximately ₹27,115, from a barn adjoining the applicant’s house

The applicant was not present during the raid, no liquor was recovered from his personal possession, and the seizure was made in the presence of his wife, Ashwin Bai

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 116/2026 registered at Police Station/Outpost Jhoba, Police Station Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act

His wife, a co-accused, had already been granted bail by the trial court in the same crime

The applicant had been in custody since 30 June 2026, the charge-sheet had been filed, and he had three Excise Act antecedents, comprising one acquittal and two cases resulting in imposition of fine

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act

Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds that no liquor was recovered from his personal possession, the recovery was from a structure adjoining his house, and his co-accused wife had already been granted bail

Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents justified refusal of bail, notwithstanding the filing of the charge-sheet and the anticipated delay in conclusion of trial

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, under which the applicant was prosecuted

In deciding bail, the Court considered the stage of the proceedings, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, the likely duration of trial, the nature of the alleged recovery, and parity with a similarly situated co-accused

The bail order was made subject to conditions securing the applicant’s presence, preventing adjournments when witnesses were present, and permitting action for breach or misuse of bail under the provisions referred to in the order

The Court found that the charge-sheet had been filed and that the applicant had remained in custody since 30 June 2026, while the trial was likely to take time

Although the State relied on the applicant’s three Excise Act antecedents, the Court noted that one case had ended in acquittal and the remaining two had resulted only in the imposition of fine

The applicant’s contention that no liquor had been recovered from his personal possession and that his wife had already secured bail was part of the bail record placed before the Court

Balancing these circumstances against the prosecution’s opposition, the Court concluded that continued detention was not warranted at that stage

The release was subject to conditions requiring attendance before the trial court, an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, personal appearance at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of the statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and consequences for unjustified absence, misuse of bail, or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation