Regular bail granted where the accused had no antecedents, the chargesheet was filed, and trial would be delayed.

On 17 June 2026, acting on secret information regarding possession and manufacture of illicit country-made Mahua liquor, police conducted a raid and allegedly intercepted the applicant at Police Station Bhatapara (Gramin), District Balodabazar-Bhatapara.

The police allegedly seized 100 bulk litres of Mahua liquor, along with a gas cylinder, stove and other articles said to have been used for preparing illicit liquor.

Crime No. 342/2026 was registered under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, and the applicant was arrested on the same date.

He filed his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The applicant denied conscious or conclusive possession, claimed false implication, and relied on the absence of criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet and the expected delay in trial.

The State opposed bail but conceded that the applicant had no previous criminal antecedents and that the charge-sheet had been filed.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in a prosecution under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act involving the alleged seizure of 100 bulk litres of Mahua liquor.

Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet and likely delay in conclusion of trial justified the grant of bail despite the alleged recovery.

What conditions should govern the applicant’s 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 substantive offence was under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, concerning the possession or related handling of illicit liquor; the applicant’s counsel submitted that the provision prescribed a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum punishment of three years.

In exercising bail jurisdiction, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegation, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the period of incarceration, the filing of the charge-sheet and the probable duration of the trial.

Bail was made subject to conditions securing the applicant’s appearance, preventing delay and regulating his conduct during trial, including conditions referring to Sections 269 and 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 84 of the BNSS.

The Court acknowledged the allegation that 100 bulk litres of Mahua liquor and equipment used for its preparation had been recovered from the applicant.

However, for the purpose of deciding bail, it gave weight to the absence of any prior criminal antecedent, the applicant’s custody since 17 June 2026, the filing of the charge-sheet and the likelihood that the trial would take further time.

Balancing these considerations against the nature and gravity of the allegation, the Court concluded that continued detention was not necessary at that stage and that the applicant could be released subject to conditions designed to ensure his presence and prevent abuse of the liberty of bail.

The applicant was required, inter alia, not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on every date either personally or through counsel, 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, and to comply with the consequences prescribed for absence or misuse of bail.

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