Regular bail granted where chargesheet was filed, the applicant had no antecedents, and trial was likely to be delayed.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 165/2026 registered at Police Station Chhal, 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 35 litres of mahua liquor kept in three plastic containers from the applicant’s possession.

The applicant claimed false implication and contended that the liquor was not recovered from his exclusive possession.

He further submitted that he had no criminal antecedents under the Excise Act, had been in custody since 12 July 2026, and that the trial would take considerable time.

The State opposed bail, contending that the charge-sheet had been filed and that the applicant might abscond.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with offences under Sections 34(2) and 59(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act?

Whether the applicant’s custody period, absence of criminal antecedents, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely delay in conclusion of trial justified the grant of bail?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of regular bail by the High Court or Court of Session.

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

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

Bail was granted subject to conditions intended to secure the applicant’s presence, prevent delay, and safeguard the trial process.

The Court considered the alleged seizure of 35 litres of mahua liquor and the nature of the Excise Act offences, but also noted that the applicant had no pending criminal antecedent under the Excise Act.

The charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the immediate need for continued custodial detention, while the applicant had remained in custody since 12 July 2026 and the trial was likely to take further time.

Balancing these factors against the State’s apprehension that the applicant might abscond, the Court found that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to stringent conditions requiring his appearance and cooperation with the trial.

The applicant was required not to seek unnecessary 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 authorised the trial Court to take action in accordance with law if the applicant misused the liberty of bail or deliberately failed to appear.