Regular bail is warranted where the accused lacks antecedents, chargesheet is filed, and trial delay is likely.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 404/2026 registered at Police Station Chakarbhatha, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 34(2) and 47 of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 29 June 2026, Constables recovered 22 litres of Mahua liquor from the possession of the applicant and co-accused Dil Singh Gond on the Main Road of Village Sarwani. The recovery was communicated to the Assistant Sub-Inspector, who reached the spot and seized the liquor.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, contending that he had been in custody since 29 June 2026, the charge-sheet had been filed, the trial would take time, and he had no criminal antecedents.

The State opposed the application.

Whether the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in connection with the alleged offences under Sections 34(2) and 47 of the Excise Act.

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

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which empowers the High Court to grant regular bail. The alleged offences were under Sections 34(2) and 47 of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

In exercising bail discretion, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicant’s period of incarceration, the stage of the proceedings, the likelihood of delay in trial, and the existence or absence of criminal antecedents.

The applicant also relied on the submission that Section 34(2) prescribes a minimum punishment of one year and a maximum punishment of three years.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

After examining the case diary, the Court balanced the allegation concerning recovery of 22 litres of Mahua liquor against the relevant bail considerations.

It found significant that the applicant had no registered criminal antecedents, had remained in custody since 29 June 2026, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed, thereby reducing the need for continued custodial detention.

Since the trial was likely to take time, the Court concluded that the applicant was entitled to bail notwithstanding the nature of the allegations.

The High Court directed that Harprasad be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The release was subject to conditions requiring him not to seek adjournments when prosecution witnesses were present, to remain present before the trial court on each date either personally or through counsel, and to 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.

The order further provided for consequences in the event of absence, misuse of bail, or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.