Regular bail is warranted where the chargesheet is filed, custody is prolonged, and trial is unlikely to conclude soon.

The applicant, Ramkumar, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 35/2026 registered at Police Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The prosecution alleged that, acting on secret information, the police recovered 40 litres of country-made Mahua liquor from co-accused Nakul Nayak and that the applicant fled from the spot during the raid.

The applicant was arrested on 20.05.2026 and remained in judicial custody thereafter. He contended that he was falsely implicated, that the charge-sheet had been filed, that he had no previous criminal antecedents, and that the trial would take considerable time.

The State opposed the application but did not dispute the filing of the charge-sheet or the applicant’s absence of criminal antecedents.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of regular bail by the High Court.

The alleged offence was under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, which, as submitted by the applicant, carries a prescribed punishment ranging from one to three years’ imprisonment.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, and the probable duration of the trial.

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

The Court found that the charge-sheet had already been filed, thereby reducing the need for further custodial investigation.

It also noted that the applicant had remained in custody since 20.05.2026, had no previous criminal antecedents, and that the conclusion of the trial was likely to take time.

Although the allegation concerned the recovery of 40 litres of Mahua liquor from a co-accused and the applicant was alleged to have fled during the raid, the Court considered these circumstances along with the relatively limited statutory punishment relied upon by the applicant and the completion of investigation.

On the cumulative assessment of these factors, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for regular bail.

The release was subject to conditions requiring attendance before the trial court, refraining from seeking adjournments when witnesses were present, personal appearance at the opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of the statement under Section 351 of the BNSS, and compliance with proceedings in the event of misuse of bail or failure to appear pursuant to proclamation.

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