Regular bail is warranted after charge-sheet filing where the accused lacks antecedents and trial conclusion may be delayed.

The applicant was arrested on 18 June 2026 in connection with Crime No. 21/2026 registered by the Excise Circle Office, Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, for offences under Sections 34(1)(A)(F), 34(2) and 59-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The prosecution alleged that, upon receiving a written complaint, the authorities searched the applicant’s residential house at Village Duppi and seized 7 bulk litres of handmade Mahuwa liquor and 45 kg of Mahuwa Lahan.

The applicant asserted false implication, lack of exclusive possession, absence of criminal antecedents and prolonged custody.

His first bail application had been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after curing registry defects.

By the time of the present application, the charge-sheet had been filed and the applicant had remained in custody since 18 June 2026.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the alleged seizure under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, the filing of the charge-sheet, absence of criminal antecedents and period of custody.

Whether bail should be granted subject to conditions securing the applicant’s presence and preventing misuse of the liberty of bail.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of regular bail by the High Court or Court of Session.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 34(1)(A)(F), 34(2) and 59-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the relevant circumstances, including submission of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, the period of incarceration and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial.

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

The Court considered the prosecution allegations and the seizure of liquor and Mahuwa Lahan, but found that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, the investigation had culminated in filing of the charge-sheet, and he had been in custody since 18 June 2026.

Since the trial was likely to take time, these circumstances outweighed the grounds urged against release at the interlocutory bail stage.

The Court therefore concluded that the applicant was entitled to bail, while imposing safeguards to ensure his attendance and proper conduct during the trial.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, to remain present before the trial court, to comply with proceedings in the event of non-appearance or proclamation, and to appear personally at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS.

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