Regular bail warranted where the charge-sheet is filed, the accused has no antecedents, and trial will take time.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 140/2026, registered for an alleged offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

The prosecution alleged that a search of his house led to the seizure of 12 bulk litres of handmade mahua liquor and 345 kg of mahua lahan.

The applicant submitted that he had no criminal antecedents, had been in custody since 25 August 2026, and that the charge-sheet had been filed; the State opposed bail relying on the quantity seized.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the allegations and circumstances of the case

2. Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, period in custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and the likely time required to conclude trial supported his release on bail

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the application for regular bail.

The alleged offence was punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

The Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations alongside the applicant’s antecedents, custody, filing of the charge-sheet, and expected duration of the trial when deciding whether to grant bail.

The Court considered the seizure of liquor and mahua lahan from the applicant’s house and the seriousness of the allegation, but weighed those circumstances against the absence of prior criminal antecedents, the applicant’s custody since 25 August 2026, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the likelihood that trial would take time to conclude.

On balance, it found those circumstances sufficient to grant regular bail.

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting interference with witnesses or the fair trial, and requiring the applicant to attend each hearing until disposal of the trial.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial Court’s determination on the merits.