Absence of active and conscious possession of illicit liquor justifies grant of bail.

On January 9, 2026, the police of P.S. Salsalai conducted a raid at a shop in Chota Pampapur Dera based on secret information regarding illicit liquor.

During the search, 65 bulk liters of country-made foreign liquor were recovered; however, the suspect (the applicant) fled the scene.

The police registered FIR No. 13/2026 for offences under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act and Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

The applicant was arrested on March 2, 2026, and remained in judicial custody thereafter.

The applicant moved this first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, contending false implication and lack of direct possession.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, given that the seizure was not made from his direct or conscious possession.

2. Whether the applicant's criminal history and the nature of the offence justify continued judicial incarceration during the trial.

The Court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of bail.

Substantive liability was considered under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, which penalizes the possession of illicit liquor beyond prescribed limits, and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The Court also applied general bail jurisprudence, which weighs the gravity of the offence against the accused's socio-economic status, the likelihood of recidivism, and the potential for tampering with evidence or fleeing justice.

The Court observed that the illicit liquor was not seized from the "active, conscious, direct and immediate possession" of the applicant, as he was not present at the time of the raid.

Addressing the State's objection regarding the applicant's two criminal antecedents, the Court noted that the applicant had been acquitted in one case and the other had been disposed of through compromise, meaning no prosecution was currently pending.

The Court highlighted that the applicant is a 25-year-old laborer with a dependent family, factors which diminish the risk of him fleeing from justice.

Furthermore, the Court reasoned that since the trial would take a considerable amount of time to conclude and the final report had already been submitted, there was no compelling reason to continue incarceration, especially as there was no evidence suggesting the applicant would influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.

It directed that Brajesh Kumar be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the same amount.

The grant of bail was made subject to several conditions, including regular attendance at hearings, a prohibition on committing similar offences, and a mandate to refrain from inducing or threatening witnesses.

The Court further directed compliance with Section 346 of the BNSS regarding the examination of witnesses during the trial.