The High Court rejected the second bail application for a repeat offender in a large-scale liquor seizure case.

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. after his first application was rejected on merits on 13.01.2026.

The prosecution alleged that on 08.02.2025, police intercepted a vehicle entering Chhattisgarh from Madhya Pradesh after a chase.

The search yielded 351 bulk liters of country liquor.

While three co-accused were arrested immediately, the applicant absconded and was subsequently arrested on 18.11.2025.

The applicant sought bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused who were granted bail by the Supreme Court and High Court, and because key witnesses had turned hostile.

The State opposed the bail, citing the applicant's status as a habitual offender with six previous criminal involvements under the Indian Forest Act, MV Act, and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. despite the rejection of a previous bail application on merits and the existence of six criminal antecedents.

Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, which governs the unlawful possession and transport of liquor.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.) regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

Principle of parity in bail matters.

Impact of criminal antecedents/habitual offending on the discretionary power to grant bail.

The court engaged in a balancing test between the applicant’s arguments for parity and the State’s evidence of recidivism.

The Court emphasized the "nature and gravity of the offence" and the applicant’s status as a "habitual offender".

The Court noted that the previous bail application had already been rejected on merits quite recently (January 2026), and the applicant failed to raise any "new ground" to justify a departure from the earlier reaching.

The existence of six pending criminal cases significantly weighed against the applicant, leading the court to determine that the seriousness of the allegations outweighed the grounds for release.

The Court held that given the criminal history and the lack of new grounds, the applicant did not deserve the liberty of bail.

The Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.