Absence of previous convictions and completion of investigation warrant bail in non-heinous excise offenses.

The applicants, Vishal Ahirwar and Dilip, were intercepted by police in District Rajgarh on February 9, 2026, while traveling on a motorcycle carrying two canes containing 80 bulk liters of illicit country-made raw liquor.

They were arrested on the spot for failing to produce a valid license and have remained in judicial custody since.

The Police Station Suthaliya registered an FIR under the Excise Act, and the investigation is now complete with the final report submitted to the court.

The applicants filed this first bail application citing their status as young laborers with family responsibilities and contesting the nature of the seizure.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the nature of the offense and their lack of previous convictions.

2. Whether the continued incarceration of the applicants is necessary for the trial, given that the investigation is complete and the offense is triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC).

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

It also considered Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, which penalizes the unlawful transport or possession of liquor.

Additionally, the court applied established bail principles concerning "jail or bail," focusing on the socio-economic status of the accused, the likelihood of tampering with evidence, the gravity of the offense (noting it was not "heinous or brutal"), and the absence of prior convictions for major offenses.

The court evaluated the prosecution's opposition, which was based on the applicants' criminal antecedents (one for Vishal and four for Dilip), against the defense's argument that these matters are pending and have not resulted in convictions.

The court noted that because the investigation is complete and the final report has been filed, the necessity for custodial interrogation has ceased.

Analyzing the circumstances, the Judge observed that given the applicants' young age (20 and 21 years) and their profession as laborers, continued incarceration would cause undue hardship to their families.

The court found the merit in the contention that there was no immediate risk of the applicants fleeing from justice or influencing witnesses, especially since the offense is triable by a JMFC and not of a nature that affects society at large in a brutal manner.

The holding clarified that since the veracity of the prosecution’s claims would be determined during the trial and there was no substantial criminal past involving convictions, incarceration was no longer compelled.

Relief was granted subject to the furnishing of a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with separate sureties and specific conditions, including regular court attendance and a prohibition on committing similar offenses.