Nittu Raja Nitendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87119
1 MCRC-52437-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
th
ON THE 29 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52437 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010787632026
NITTU RAJA NITENDRA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ravi Shankar Dubey - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Anoop Sonkar - Dy Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail in
connection with Crime No.243/2026 registered at Police Station
Badamalhara, District Chhattarpur, for the offence punishable under Section
34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, it is alleged that 63 bulk liters of
illicit liquor has been seized from the possession of the co-accused persons.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. He further submits
that the applicant has been made an accused solely on the basis of the
memorandum of co-accused Ramlakhan. It is contended that there is no other
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 30-10-2026
12:02:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87119
2 MCRC-52437-2026
material connecting the applicant with the alleged offence and that the only

allegation against him is that he sold liquor to the co-accused. It is further
submitted that the applicant is a young man aged about 20 years and has no
criminal antecedents. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the
applicant be granted anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the prayer
for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that, as per the memorandum of co-
accused Ramlakhan, the latter had purchased liquor from the applicant. He
further submits that the Call Detail Records (CDRs) indicate that the
applicant and the co-accused were in contact with each other over the
telephone. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondent/State prays that
the applicant is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail and that the
application be rejected.
5. Heard the parties and perused the record.
6. At the stage of bail, the merits of the case are not required to be
examined. Apart from the Section 59-A(i) of M.P. Excise Act prohibits for
entertaining anticipatory bail pertaining to offence under Section 34(2) of
M.P. Excise Act.
7. For ready reference, it is apt to quote the relevant provisions of Section
59-A(i) of M.P. Excise Act, as under :-
"59A. Certain offence under the Act to be non-bailable -
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (No. 2 of 1974) or Section 59 of the Act,-
(i) no application for an anticipatory bail shall be entertained by any
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 30-10-2026
12:02:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87119
3 MCRC-52437-2026
court in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under Section

49-A or in respect of a person not being a person holding a licence under the
Act or rules made thereunder who is accused of an offence covered by clause
(a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 34 with quantity of liquor
found at the time or in the course of detection of such offence exceeding fifty
bulk litres.
(ii) xxx xxx "
8. A bare reading of the above-quoted crystalizes the embargo for the courts
to entertain anticipatory bail in underlying fact situation of the instant case.
9. The bail is a discretionary domain and the power to grant anticipatory
bail is extraordinary in nature. The Supreme Court in Srikant Upadhyay and
others v. State of Bihar and another, (2024) 12 SCC 382 has observed that
"..Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by
any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot
be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and
judicious discretion by the court depending on the facts and circumstances of
each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the court concerned
has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the
accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper
the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or
distraction of the evidence....".
10. Of-late, the Supreme Court in the case of Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai
Shah v. Kamal Dayani (2025) 1 SCC 753 has observed that the power to
grant anticipatory bail should not be exercised in routine manner, but with
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 30-10-2026
12:02:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87119
4 MCRC-52437-2026
great degree of circumspection.

11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, particularly the
provisions of Section 59-A(i) of M.P. Excise Act, it is not lawful to entertain
anticipatory bail application. Looking to the above discussion, this Court is
not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
12. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
(RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE
Rao

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 30-10-2026
12:02:08