Absence of criminal antecedents and socio-economic status justify bail in liquor seizure offences under Excise Act.

On March 20, 2026, S.I. Himanshu Agrawal of Excise Circle-3, Ujjain, conducted a raid at the applicant’s residence in Gopalpura village, Maksi, following secret information.

The search yielded 82.25 bulk litres of country-made foreign liquor seized from the applicant’s possession without a valid permit or license.

Consequently, Crime No. 201/2026 was registered under Sections 34(1)(A) and 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act.

The applicant, a 35-year-old homemaker/laborer, was apprehended on the spot and remained in judicial custody from March 20, 2026.

She subsequently moved the High Court for bail, asserting false implication and lack of ownership of the premises where the liquor was found.

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the nature of the offence and her personal circumstances?

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

It considered the gravity of offences under Sections 34(1)(A) and 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act.

The court further relied on the principle that bail may be granted where there is an absence of criminal antecedents, a lack of flight risk, and no likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses or committing recidivism.

Additionally, it referenced Section 346 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.) regarding the timely examination of witnesses during trial.

The Court analyzed the prosecution's case involving the seizure of 82.25 bulk litres of illicit liquor from the applicant.

While the State opposed bail due to the gravity of the offence, it conceded that the applicant had no prior criminal record.

The Court observed that the applicant is a 35-year-old homemaker with dependent family responsibilities, which diminished the possibility of her fleeing from justice.

It further reasoned that given her socio-economic status as a laborer, she was unlikely to influence prosecution witnesses or tamper with evidence.

Noting that the offence is triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) and that the veracity of the allegations would be determined at trial, the Court found no compelling reason to justify continued incarceration.

The bail was granted subject to specific conditions, including regular appearance before the trial court, refraining from committing similar offences, and ensuring no direct or indirect inducement or threat is made to witnesses.

The Court held that the order would remain effective until the end of the trial, subject to the applicant's compliance with the stated conditions.