Regular bail granted where charge-sheet was filed, antecedents were absent, and trial was likely to be prolonged.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 01/2026 registered by the District Level Flying Squad, Mahasamund, for alleged offences under Sections 34(1)(a), 34(2) and 59(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The prosecution alleged that, pursuant to secret information, the police raided the applicant’s premises and seized 21 bulk litres of country-made mahua liquor from her possession.

The applicant contended that the liquor was seized from a house occupied by joint-family members, that she had been falsely implicated, and that she had no criminal antecedents.

She had remained in custody since 10 July 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed before the competent court.

The State opposed bail on the ground that 21 bulk litres of liquor had been seized from her possession.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the alleged seizure of 21 bulk litres of country-made mahua liquor.

2. Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, period of custody, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of 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.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 34(1)(a), 34(2) and 59(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, whether the investigation had culminated in filing of the charge-sheet, the period of incarceration, and the likely duration of the trial.

The Court considered the prosecution allegation that 21 bulk litres of mahua liquor had been seized from the applicant, but also took into account that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, had been in custody since 10 July 2026, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Since investigation was complete and the trial was likely to take time, the Court found sufficient grounds to exercise its discretion in favour of regular bail despite the nature of the excise allegations.

The Court imposed conditions intended to secure the applicant’s presence, prevent unnecessary adjournments, and permit action in case of misuse of bail.

The release was subject to conditions requiring her not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on scheduled dates, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of her statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The order further authorised appropriate proceedings in the event of absence, misuse of bail, or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.