Chhattisgarh High Court Grants Bail to Applicant Arrested for Possession of Illicit Liquor: Balances Pretrial Detention, Prior Acquittal, and Stringent Bail Conditions

Court’s Decision

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant, arrested for possession of illicit liquor under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, was granted bail due to considerations such as:

• Prior acquittal in a similar case.
• Prolonged pretrial incarceration (since October 21, 2024).
• Filing of the charge sheet, reducing risks of tampering or evasion.

The court imposed conditions to ensure trial proceedings were not hindered.

Facts

1. Incident: On October 21, 2024, the police conducted a raid based on informant intelligence and seized 20 bulk liters of country-made liquor from the applicant.
2. Prosecution: The applicant was charged under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act for possessing illegal liquor.
3. Criminal History:
   • Two prior cases under the Excise Act.
   • Acquitted in one; the second case remains pending.
4. Current Status: The applicant has been in jail since his arrest, awaiting trial.

Issues

1. Should the applicant be granted bail considering his criminal antecedents?
2. Does the delay in trial and prolonged incarceration justify bail under procedural fairness?

Petitioner’s Arguments

• False Implication: The applicant claimed that he was wrongly accused of the offense.
• Prior Acquittal: The applicant highlighted his acquittal in a prior case under Section 34-1 of the Excise Act, demonstrating a potential pattern of false allegations.
• Punishment Consideration: Under Section 34(2), the prescribed punishment is a minimum of one year and a maximum of three years, suggesting his continued detention for a non-severe offense was unwarranted.
• Pretrial Detention: With a month already spent in jail, further detention would violate principles of justice, particularly given the likely delay in trial conclusion.

Respondent’s Arguments

• Criminal Antecedents: The prosecution opposed bail, emphasizing the applicant’s repeated involvement in cases under the Excise Act.
• Seizure Evidence: The recovery of 20 bulk liters of illicit liquor from the applicant was presented as substantial proof of guilt.
• Case Progression: The prosecution pointed out that the charge sheet was filed, indicating readiness for trial and opposing any leniency.

Analysis of the Law

• Section 34(2), Chhattisgarh Excise Act: Penalizes possession of illicit liquor, with penalties ranging from one to three years’ imprisonment.
• Principle of Bail: Courts consider the severity of the offense, criminal history, possibility of absconding, and interference with evidence while deciding bail applications.
• BNSS, 2023: Provides procedural safeguards to prevent unwarranted detention and promote fair trial principles.

Precedent Analysis

While no specific cases were cited, the court relied on general jurisprudence related to bail, which underscores:

1. Presumption of Innocence: Until proven guilty, an accused is entitled to fair treatment.
2. Pretrial Incarceration: Courts avoid excessive detention when the trial conclusion is uncertain.
3. Safeguarding Justice: Stringent bail conditions ensure trial integrity without compromising individual liberty.

Court’s Reasoning

The court’s decision was influenced by the following factors:

1. Balancing Justice and Liberty: While the applicant had prior cases, one ended in acquittal, reflecting possible false implication.
2. Trial Delays: Considering the pending trial, prolonged incarceration would violate fairness.
3. Risk Mitigation: Filing of the charge sheet reduced the risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing trial.
4. Proportionality: The potential punishment (three years maximum) did not justify extended pretrial detention.

The court concluded that the applicant’s release, subject to strict conditions, would safeguard both public interest and individual rights.

Conclusion

The applicant was granted bail with the following conditions:

1. Undertaking: No unnecessary adjournments when witnesses are present in court.
2. Mandatory Presence: Regular attendance in court hearings, either personally or through counsel.
3. Misuse of Bail: Non-compliance with conditions or deliberate absence would lead to action under Sections 209, 269, and 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
4. Critical Hearings: Mandatory personal presence for case opening, charge framing, and statement recording.

Implications

The judgment reinforces:

1. Balance Between Rights and Public Interest: Courts prioritize fairness while ensuring trials proceed without hindrance.
2. Pretrial Detention as an Exception: Undue incarceration, especially for non-severe offenses, is discouraged.
3. Safeguards Against Bail Misuse: Conditions imposed aim to ensure accountability while respecting individual liberty.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of procedural safeguards and balancing judicial discretion in granting bail.

Also Read – Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award, Finds Claims Within Limitation Period Due to Acknowledgment of Debt, Rejects Counterclaims as Time-Barred for Not Being Part of Ongoing Negotiations”