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

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 109/2026 registered at Police Station Patewa, District Mahasamund, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The prosecution alleged that, acting on secret information, the police intercepted the applicant while he was transporting country-made liquor from Patewa to Patai Jhara and recovered 100 quarter bottles containing 18 litres of liquor along with a motorcycle.

The applicant allegedly failed to produce a valid licence or authority for possession and transportation.

The applicant denied the allegations, claimed false implication, and asserted that he had been apprehended while travelling to his in-laws’ house.

He also relied on his status as a daily-wage labourer, his responsibility towards his aged and ailing parents, and the absence of criminal antecedents.

The State opposed bail, primarily submitting that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning the grant of regular bail.

The underlying prosecution was for unlawful possession and transportation of liquor punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the period of incarceration, and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court considered the alleged recovery of 18 litres of country-made liquor and the seriousness of the offence, but balanced these factors against the fact that the investigation had culminated in the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, and he had remained in judicial custody since 14.06.2026.

Since the trial was likely to take time, the Court found continued detention unwarranted and held that the applicant was entitled to bail.

The Court safeguarded the proceedings by imposing conditions requiring attendance before the trial court, abstention from unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, personal appearance at key stages of the trial, and consequences for misuse of bail or non-appearance.

The release was subject to conditions concerning non-seeking of adjournments, regular appearance, personal presence at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of the statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and proceedings in accordance with law in the event of misuse of bail or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.