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. 234/2026 registered at Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh, for offences under Sections 34(2) and 59(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. Acting on secret information, the police conducted a raid and allegedly seized 40 litres of mahua liquor from the applicant’s possession.

The applicant claimed that he was a daily-wage labourer, had been falsely implicated, and that the liquor was not recovered from his exclusive possession. He also asserted that he had no previous criminal antecedents under the Excise Act and had been in custody since 21 July 2026.

The prosecution opposed bail on the grounds that the charge-sheet had been filed and that the applicant might abscond.

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the allegation of possession of 40 litres of mahua liquor under Sections 34(2) and 59(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act?

Whether the applicant’s custody period, absence of previous Excise Act antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likelihood of delay in trial justified release on bail?

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

The prosecution alleged offences under Sections 34(2) and 59(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act; the Court noted the applicant’s submission that Section 34(2) carries a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum punishment of three years.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, and the anticipated duration of the trial.

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

The Court found that continued detention was not necessary at that stage because the charge-sheet had already been filed, the applicant had no pending criminal antecedent under the Excise Act, and he had remained in custody since 21 July 2026.

Although the allegation involved seizure of 40 litres of mahua liquor and the State raised the possibility of absconding, the Court considered that the trial was likely to take further time and that the applicant’s presence could be secured through stringent bail conditions.

Balancing the nature of the offence against the applicant’s custody period and the absence of relevant antecedents, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to regular bail.

The applicant was required, inter alia, 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 his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The trial court was authorised to proceed in accordance with law in the event of absence, non-compliance, or misuse of the liberty of bail.