Regular bail granted where the charge-sheet was filed and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 65/2026 registered at Police Station Suregaon, District Balod, for an alleged offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The prosecution alleged that, acting on secret information regarding illegal sale of liquor, the police conducted a raid near Kasahikala Village, Bhatapara High School, on 15 August 2026 and seized 5.400 bulk litres of country liquor from the applicant, who could not produce a valid licence or document authorising its possession.

The applicant denied exclusive possession and contended that the liquor had been seized from the roadside. He also argued that the quantity was only marginally above the permissible limit of 5 bulk litres and that the charge-sheet had already been filed.

The State opposed bail, relying on the alleged recovery and the applicant’s one criminal antecedent.

The applicant had remained in custody since 15 August 2026.

Whether the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a prosecution under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act?

Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, the nature and quantity of the alleged recovery, and the likelihood of delay in trial justified grant of bail despite the State’s objection regarding the alleged recovery and criminal antecedent?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail, and considered the allegation under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act concerning unlawful possession of liquor beyond the permissible limit without authority.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the material concerning the alleged recovery, the applicant’s period of custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, the stage and likely duration of the trial, and the absence of any need to express a final opinion on the merits.

The Court weighed the prosecution’s allegation that 5.400 bulk litres of country liquor had been recovered from the applicant against the applicant’s challenge to exclusive possession and his submission that the quantity was only marginally above the permissible limit.

Although the State pointed to one criminal antecedent, the Court found the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s custody since 15 August 2026, and the likelihood that the trial would take time to be sufficient considerations in favour of release.

Without commenting on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court exercised its discretion under Section 483 BNSS to grant bail.

The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek unnecessary adjournments when witnesses are present, to remain present before the Trial Court on each date either personally or through counsel, to comply with proceedings arising from any unauthorised absence or proclamation, and to appear personally on the dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Trial Court for compliance.