Active Possession and Criminal History Assessed for Bail Under Excise Act and BNSS.

The applicant, Ravi Dabi, was apprehended on 26.01.2026 by P.S. Narwar following the interception of a registration-less Honda Aviator on 25.01.2026.

Police seized 55 bulk litres of country-made plain liquor from the joint possession of the applicant and a co-accused (Vishal).

The applicant was charged under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, in Crime No. 09/2026.

The applicant moved this first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, contending false implication, absence of conscious possession, and parity with the co-accused who was granted bail.

The State opposed the bail citing 14 criminal antecedents, though the applicant clarified he was acquitted in 13 and convicted in only one unrelated matter.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the period of incarceration, nature of the offense, and criminal history.

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

It further applied Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, which penalizes the unlawful transport or possession of liquor in quantities exceeding 50 bulk litres.

The Court considered the principle of parity in judicial discretion, noting the prior release of the co-accused.

Additionally, the court adhered to Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 346 of the BNSS, 2023) regarding the expeditious conduct of proceedings.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offense against the applicant's socio-economic status and the procedural status of the case.

It noted that the final report had been submitted and the offense is triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), implying a limited maximum sentence.

Responding to the State's concern regarding 14 criminal antecedents, the Court observed that the applicant had been acquitted in 13 of those matters and the sole conviction was under the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, suggesting no pending prosecution or high risk of recidivism.

The Court found that since the illicit liquor was allegedly seized from joint possession and the co-accused Vishal had already been granted bail on 11.02.2026, there was no compelling reason for the applicant's continued incarceration.

It concluded that there was no significant likelihood of the applicant fleeing justice or tampering with evidence.

The Court held that the complicity of the applicant is a matter of trial and continued detention was unnecessary.

Relief was granted subject to conditions including regular attendance at hearings, non-commission of similar offenses, and no tampering with evidence.