Regular bail granted where JMFC-triable offence, continued custody, and an unfiled charge-sheet indicated delayed trial.

The applicants, Tamradhawaj Kumar Dhruv and Javed Tandon, were arrested in connection with Crime No. 193/2026 registered at Police Station Nandani, District Durg, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

The prosecution alleged that 45.900 bulk litres of foreign liquor were illegally possessed by the applicants jointly.

The applicants had been in custody since 16 June 2026, the charge-sheet had not yet been filed, and the offence was triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class.

The State opposed bail, referring to the alleged joint possession and one criminal antecedent against applicant Javed Tandon under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC.

This was the applicants’ first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the applicants should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with an offence under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

Whether the alleged joint possession of illicit liquor and the criminal antecedent of one applicant justified denial of 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 nature and gravity of the allegation, the classification of the offence as triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class, the period of custody, the stage of investigation, and the likely duration of trial as relevant bail considerations.

Bail was granted without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, subject to statutory and judicial conditions intended to secure the applicants’ presence and prevent misuse of liberty.

The Court acknowledged the allegation that 45.900 bulk litres of foreign liquor had been recovered from the joint possession of the applicants and noted the State’s objection based on applicant Javed Tandon’s antecedent.

However, it found that the offence was triable by the JMFC, the applicants had remained in custody since 16 June 2026, the charge-sheet had not been filed, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Balancing these factors against the prosecution’s objections, the Court considered the applicants entitled to bail, expressly declining to comment on the merits of the case.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring undertakings against unnecessary adjournments, appearance before the trial court, compliance with proceedings in the event of absence or proclamation, and personal presence at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

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