Regular bail is warranted where chargesheet is filed, custody is prolonged, and trial is likely to be delayed.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 192/2026 registered at Police Station Gunderdehi, District Balod, for an offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The prosecution alleged that, on 18 June 2026, acting on secret information, the police raided an area near Gada Para and apprehended the applicant while he was allegedly selling illicit liquor. A total of 34 bottles/pouches of 180 ml each, amounting to 6.120 bulk litres of country-made liquor, was allegedly recovered from his possession. The liquor was seized and the offence was registered when the applicant could not provide a satisfactory explanation for its possession.

The applicant filed his first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He denied the allegations, disputed the recovery and place of apprehension, asserted that he had no previous conviction, and submitted that the earlier criminal case relied upon by the prosecution had ended in his acquittal. He had remained in custody since 18 June 2026, and the charge-sheet had been filed before the competent court.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant had one criminal antecedent.

1. 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?

2. Whether the applicant’s alleged previous criminal antecedent justified denial of bail despite the period of custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial?

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 prosecution under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

In determining bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the accusation, the period of detention, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely time required for conclusion of the trial.

The Court also imposed conditions to secure the applicant’s attendance and prevent misuse of bail, including conditions concerning appearance, adjournments, proclamation proceedings under Section 84 of the BNSS, and consequences under Sections 269 and 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The Court balanced the allegation of possession of 6.120 bulk litres of country-made liquor and the State’s objection based on a previous antecedent against the circumstances favouring release.

The applicant had been in judicial custody since 18 June 2026, the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had already been filed, and the offence was triable by the Magistrate as submitted by the applicant.

Although the State relied on the antecedent, the applicant asserted that the earlier case had resulted in acquittal.

On an overall assessment of the facts, the nature of the offence, the period of custody, and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time, the Court found it appropriate to grant regular bail.

Bail was subject to conditions requiring him to avoid unnecessary adjournments when witnesses were present, remain present before the trial court on every date, 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 comply with any proceedings initiated in case of misuse of bail or failure to appear.

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