Regular bail may be denied where repeated criminal antecedents and prior bail misuse establish habitual offending.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 391/2026 registered at Police Station Excise Circle, Seepat, District Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The prosecution alleged that, pursuant to secret information, the police conducted a raid on 3 July 2026 and seized 16.20 litres of country-made liquor from the applicant’s possession.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, asserting false implication, absence of conscious possession, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, and likely delay in conclusion of the trial.

He had nine similar criminal antecedents, of which seven had been disposed of and two Excise Act cases remained pending.

The State opposed bail on the grounds of the quantity seized, the pending antecedents, and the applicant’s status as a habitual offender.

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

The Court considered Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, under which the applicant was prosecuted.

In deciding bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the quantity of liquor seized, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

It also relied on Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 559, for the principle that bail may be cancelled or refused where the accused has relevant previous criminal antecedents and the circumstances demonstrate that he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail.

The Court acknowledged that the charge-sheet had been filed and that the applicant had been in custody since 3 July 2026, but found these factors insufficient to warrant bail in the circumstances of the case.

The seizure of 16.20 litres of country-made liquor, coupled with nine similar antecedents—including two pending Excise Act cases—indicated that the applicant was a habitual offender.

The Court further relied on the alleged misuse of bail previously granted to the applicant and applied the principle recognized in Deepak Yadav that antecedents and conduct relevant to the likelihood of repeated offending may justify denial of bail.

On this cumulative assessment, the Court held that the applicant had not made out a fit case for regular bail.

The rejection was based principally on the quantity seized, the applicant’s nine similar criminal antecedents, two pending Excise Act cases, his characterization as a habitual offender, and the alleged misuse of previously granted bail.

The trial court was directed to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously, and the Registry was directed to provide a certified copy of the order to the trial court for information and compliance.