Absence of direct possession and recidivism risk warrants bail under Section 483 of BNSS.

The applicant was arrested on March 23, 2026, following a police raid conducted by Sub Inspector Bhurelal Mawase at a Tapri (hut) in village Katariyakhedi.

During the search, authorities recovered 80 bulk liters of illicit country-made, foreign, and raw liquor.

The applicant was charged under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, at Police Station Biaora Dehat.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated, the Tapri did not belong to him, and the contraband was not in his direct possession.

The State opposed bail, citing the gravity of the offense and one criminal antecedent from 2018.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the quantity of liquor seized and his prior criminal record.

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

It considered the substantive offense defined under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, which penalizes the unlawful possession of liquor above a prescribed limit.

Furthermore, the court referenced procedural compliance regarding trial expedition under Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 346 of the BNSS.

The court evaluated the necessity of continued incarceration against the applicant's personal circumstances.

It noted that the applicant is a 35-year-old laborer with a dependent family and that the investigation is largely complete, negating the need for further custodial interrogation.

While acknowledging a prior criminal antecedent (Crime No. 97/2018), the court observed it resulted only in a sentence of "Till Rising of the Court" (TRC) and a fine, suggesting a lack of a substantial criminal past.

The court reasoned that since the offense is triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) and the trial would take time to conclude, there was no compelling reason to deny bail, especially as there appeared to be no likelihood of the applicant fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence.

The holding is contingent upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety of the same amount.

The court imposed specific conditions, including regular attendance at hearings, a prohibition on committing similar offenses, and a mandate not to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial unless breached.