Regular bail granted where the charge-sheet is filed and prolonged trial is anticipated despite criminal antecedents.

On 27 June 2026, acting on informer information, the police seized 35 bulk litres of country-made hand-distilled liquor, valued at ₹7,000, from Madhav Bandhe.

He was arrested in connection with Crime No. 220/2026 registered at Police Station Lavan, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, for offences under Sections 34(2) and 36 of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that he had been falsely implicated, that one of his two criminal antecedents had resulted in acquittal, and that the other was pending.

The State opposed bail but acknowledged that the charge-sheet had been filed.

The applicant had remained in custody since 27 June 2026, and the trial was likely to take time.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Sections 34(2) and 36 of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

Whether, considering the applicant’s criminal antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, and the probable delay in trial, bail should be granted subject to conditions.

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

The alleged offences arose under Sections 34(2) and 36 of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act; the Court noted the applicant’s submission that Section 34(2) prescribed 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 likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial.

Bail was granted subject to conditions concerning attendance, non-seeking of unnecessary adjournments, personal appearance at material stages of trial, and consequences for misuse of bail.

The Court found that continued detention was not warranted in the circumstances.

Although the applicant had two criminal antecedents, one had ended in acquittal and the other was pending, with the details disclosed in the bail application.

The charge-sheet had already been filed, reducing the need for further custodial investigation, while the applicant had been in custody since 27 June 2026 and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Balancing these factors against the nature and gravity of the excise allegations, the Court exercised its discretion under Section 483 BNSS in favour of release on bail, subject to safeguards ensuring the applicant’s presence and orderly progress of the trial.

The bail conditions require him not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, to remain present on each date of hearing personally or through counsel, and to appear personally during opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS.

The order further authorises the trial court to proceed in accordance with law if the applicant misuses bail, remains absent without sufficient cause, or fails to appear pursuant to proclamation.