Regular bail granted where the accused had no criminal antecedents, charge-sheet was filed, and trial was likely to be delayed.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 239/2026 registered at Police Station Vidhansabha, Raipur, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

Acting on secret information, the police conducted a raid and allegedly seized 21.600 bulk litres of country-made liquor from the applicant’s possession.

The applicant asserted false implication, innocence, absence of criminal antecedents, and prolonged incarceration since 13 July 2026.

It was also submitted that the charge-sheet had been filed and that the trial would take considerable time.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the liquor had been seized from the applicant’s possession.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

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

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail to a person accused of an offence and in custody.

The alleged substantive offence was under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, concerning unlawful possession of liquor beyond the prescribed quantity.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, whether he was a habitual offender, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, and the likely duration of the trial.

The Court acknowledged the allegation that 21.600 bulk litres of country-made liquor had been seized from the applicant, but found that the overall circumstances favoured release on bail.

In particular, the applicant had no criminal history and was not shown to be a habitual offender; he had remained in custody since 13 July 2026; the charge-sheet had already been filed; and the trial was likely to take time to conclude.

Balancing these factors against the nature and gravity of the accusation, the Court held that continued detention was not warranted at the pre-trial stage.

The Court directed that the applicant be released on regular bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

The applicant was required not to influence or threaten witnesses, not to prejudice a fair and expeditious trial, and to appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until conclusion of the trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to adjudication of the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.