Regular bail granted where charge-sheet filed, no antecedents, and trial likely to be prolonged.

The applicant was arrested on 29 June 2026 in connection with Crime No. 10/2026 registered at Police Station Partapur, District Kanker, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

Acting on secret information, the police allegedly seized 20 litres of country-made liquor and ₹200 in cash from his possession.

The applicant denied ownership of the seized articles, asserted false implication, and submitted that he had no criminal antecedents, had remained in custody since 29 June 2026, and that the charge-sheet had been filed, making an early conclusion of trial unlikely.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the illicit liquor had been seized from the applicant’s shop.

This was the applicant’s first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the applicant, accused of an offence under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering his period of custody, absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and anticipated delay in trial.

Whether bail should be granted despite the State’s contention that the illicit liquor had been seized from the applicant’s shop.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and considered the allegation under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegation, the applicant’s period of incarceration, criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely time required for completion of trial.

Bail was granted subject to conditions requiring the applicant’s cooperation with the trial, regular appearance, and compliance with directions concerning evidence, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

After considering the rival submissions and examining the material on record, the Court found the applicant’s prolonged custody since 29 June 2026, absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likelihood that the trial would take time to conclude to be sufficient factors favouring bail.

Although the State alleged that the liquor was seized from the applicant’s shop, the Court did not make any final observation on the merits of the prosecution case and held that the circumstances justified release on bail.

The applicant’s attendance and participation in the proceedings were secured through specific conditions.

Mukesh Netam was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on each date fixed by the trial court, 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 Court further directed that breach of the conditions or failure to appear pursuant to applicable process could result in proceedings in accordance with law.