The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed that prolonged pre-trial detention in non-violent excise offences, where the accused has no criminal antecedents and the charge-sheet has been filed, warrants the grant of regular bail. This decision reinforces the principle that liberty is the norm and custody the exception, particularly where the gravity of the offence does not justify continued incarceration.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Aarti Verma, wife of Raju Verma, aged approximately 38 years, residing at Village Jalso, PS Koni, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, was arrested on 12.01.2026 in connection with Crime No. 191/2025-26 registered at Police Station Excise Circle Kota, District Bilaspur. The case pertains to the alleged possession and storage of 40 liters of Mahua liquor, an offence punishable under Section 34(1)(a), Section 34(2), and Section 59(a) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 2009.
Key Facts
The prosecution received secret information leading to the seizure of 40 liters of Mahua liquor from the applicant’s possession.
No prior criminal record or antecedents were found against the applicant.
The charge-sheet was filed by the prosecution following the seizure and arrest.
The applicant has been in judicial custody since 12.01.2026, amounting to over three months at the time of hearing.
No allegations of violence, trafficking, or organized illicit trade were made against the applicant.
The offence is classified as non-bailable under the CG Excise Act but is not categorized as a heinous or violent crime.
Procedural History
12.01.2026: Arrest of applicant following seizure of 40 liters of Mahua liquor.
After 12.01.2026: Investigation completed and charge-sheet filed.
09.04.2026: First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
09.04.2026: Hearing conducted before the High Court; applicant absent, no representation made on her behalf.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
No advocate appeared for the applicant. The Court proceeded ex parte, relying on the record and the State’s submissions.
For the Respondent/State
Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State, opposed bail on the grounds that:
The quantity of liquor seized (40 liters) was substantial.
The offence is non-bailable under the CG Excise Act.
The charge-sheet has been filed, indicating the prosecution’s prima facie case.
However, the State conceded that the applicant had no prior criminal record.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking release from custody pending trial, subject to reasonable conditions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the grant of regular bail is warranted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 when the accused is detained for a non-violent excise offence, has no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been filed, and the trial is likely to extend over a prolonged period.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
No arguments were presented by the applicant’s counsel. The Court proceeded on the basis of the record and the State’s submissions.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that:
The offence under the CG Excise Act is serious due to the quantity seized.
The non-bailable nature of the offence under Section 34 and 59 of the Act militates against bail.
Filing of the charge-sheet indicates a prima facie case.
However, the State did not dispute the absence of criminal antecedents or the prolonged nature of custody.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the offence, the duration of detention, and the absence of prior criminal history. It noted that while the offence is non-bailable under the CG Excise Act, it does not involve violence, organized crime, or threat to public order. The Court emphasized that Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 mandates a balanced consideration of the accused’s right to liberty against the interests of justice.
"Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that there is no criminal antecedents registered against the present applicant, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant and he is in jail since 12.01.2026 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application."
The Court distinguished this case from those involving commercial trafficking or repeat offenders. It held that prolonged pre-trial detention without a trial in sight, especially for a first-time offender in a non-violent economic offence, constitutes an undue deprivation of liberty. The Court further observed that the filing of the charge-sheet does not, by itself, justify continued incarceration where other mitigating factors exist.
The Court also considered the procedural safeguards under the BNSS and imposed strict conditions to ensure the applicant’s presence and cooperation during trial.
The Verdict
The applicant, Aarti Verma, was granted regular bail. She is released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties in the like sum, subject to the following conditions:
She shall not seek any adjournment on dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present; default shall be treated as abuse of bail.
She shall appear before the trial court on all dates, personally or through counsel; absence without cause may attract proceedings under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
If a proclamation is issued under Section 84 of BNSS and she fails to appear, proceedings under Section 209 of BNSS shall be initiated.
She shall appear personally on dates for: (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge, and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS.
The trial court is directed to receive a certified copy of this order forthwith.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Is Not Denied Solely on Non-Bailable Nature of Offence
Practitioners must argue that the classification of an offence as non-bailable under a special statute does not automatically disqualify bail under Section 483 BNSS.
Courts must weigh the nature of the offence, duration of custody, and absence of criminal history.
Mahua liquor cases involving personal possession or small-scale storage are increasingly being treated as distinct from commercial trafficking.
Conditions Must Be Tailored to Ensure Trial Integrity
Courts are now imposing specific, enforceable conditions tied to trial conduct, not just financial bonds.
Conditions referencing Sections 209, 269, and 84 of BNSS signal a shift toward accountability without incarceration.
Failure to comply with appearance conditions will trigger automatic penal consequences, reducing the need for remand.
Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention Is a Ground for Bail
Detention exceeding three months without trial progress is now a recognized factor favoring bail.
The Court’s reference to "conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time" establishes a precedent for considering trial delays as a liberty interest.
This aligns with the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI on undue delay.
