Regular bail granted where charge-sheet is filed, the accused lacks antecedents, and trial may be prolonged.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 166/2026 registered at Police Station Punjipathra, District Raigarh, for offences under Sections 34(2) and 59(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

Acting on secret information, the police allegedly conducted a raid and seized 30 litres of mahua liquor kept in two plastic containers from the applicant’s possession.

The applicant had been in custody since 11 July 2026.

He claimed false implication, disputed exclusive possession, and asserted that he had no criminal antecedents under the Excise Act.

The prosecution opposed bail, principally on the ground that the applicant might abscond, although the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Sections 34(2) and 59(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period of custody, absence of relevant criminal antecedents, and the anticipated delay in trial justified release on bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It considered the offences alleged under Sections 34(2) and 59(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act; the applicant submitted that Section 34(2) carries a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum punishment of three years.

The governing bail principles applied were consideration of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of incarceration, and the likely duration of the trial.

Bail was made subject to conditions intended to secure the applicant’s presence and prevent misuse of liberty.

The Court found that the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicant had remained in custody since 11 July 2026, and he had no pending criminal antecedent under the Excise Act.

Although the allegation concerned seizure of 30 litres of mahua liquor and the State opposed bail on the apprehension of absconding, the Court considered that the trial might take considerable time.

Balancing the nature of the allegation against the applicant’s custody period, absence of relevant antecedents, and procedural completion of investigation, the Court held that continued detention was not warranted and that the applicant could be released subject to stringent conditions.

The applicant was required, inter alia, not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, to appear before the trial court on every date, to remain personally present at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and to comply with the consequences prescribed for absence or misuse of bail.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.