Suppression of criminal antecedents by a habitual offender disentitles the accused to regular bail.

The applicant, Santabai, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 319/2026 registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

The prosecution alleged that, on 14 June 2026, police recovered 200 bulk litres of homemade Mahua liquor from her possession.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that she had been falsely implicated, that the alleged liquor was not recovered from her exclusive possession, that the charge-sheet had been filed, and that she was a widow with an eight-year-old child dependent upon her.

The State opposed bail, relying upon the applicant’s two criminal antecedents—Crime Nos. 85/2023 and 636/2022—both allegedly involving similar offences, and contended that she was a habitual offender likely to repeat the offence if released.

The High Court considered the case diary and heard both parties.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in a prosecution under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

Whether the applicant’s undisclosed criminal antecedents and alleged suppression of material facts justified rejection of bail.

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

The Court applied Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, under which the applicant was prosecuted.

In assessing bail, the Court treated the accused’s criminal antecedents as a material consideration, particularly where they indicate a propensity to commit similar offences.

It relied on Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 559, for the principle that an accused’s criminal history is an important factor in determining whether bail should be granted.

Suppression of material facts before the Court was also considered adverse to the applicant’s claim for discretionary relief.

The Court acknowledged the relevant circumstances, including filing of the charge-sheet and the applicant’s period of custody, but gave decisive weight to her two prior cases of a similar nature.

Since the applicant had not disclosed these antecedents, the Court found that she had suppressed a material fact.

The antecedents prima facie indicated habitual involvement in similar criminal activity and raised a likelihood of repetition if bail were granted.

Applying the principle in Deepak Yadav that criminal antecedents are an important bail consideration, the Court concluded that the applicant’s conduct and criminal history outweighed the grounds advanced in support of release.

The first bail application filed by Santabai in Crime No. 319/2026, Police Station Basna, for the offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, was accordingly rejected.