Anticipatory bail cannot be entertained for Section 34(2) offences involving over fifty bulk litres of liquor.

The applicant filed his first application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 262/2026 registered at Police Station Dehat, District Narmadapuram, for offences under Section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act and Sections 3/181, 5/180 and 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act

The prosecution alleged recovery of 160 bulk litres of country-made liquor from vehicle No. MP-04-CN-6193, registered in the applicant’s name.

The applicant contended that he was neither driving nor present at the time of the incident, and that the vehicle was in the possession of co-accused persons. He also argued that the vehicle and alleged contraband had been seized, custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and he had no criminal antecedents.

The State opposed the application, submitting that the applicant had handed over the vehicle to the co-accused and that his knowledge and connection with the alleged transportation required investigation.

Whether the applicant could be granted anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in respect of an offence under Section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act involving recovery of 160 bulk litres of liquor.

Whether Section 59-A(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act barred the Court from entertaining the anticipatory-bail application where the quantity of liquor exceeded fifty bulk litres.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing anticipatory bail.

It relied principally on Section 59-A(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, which expressly prohibits any court from entertaining an application for anticipatory bail by a person who is not a licence-holder and is accused of an offence under Section 34(1)(a) or (b) where the quantity of liquor exceeds fifty bulk litres.

The Court further applied the principle that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy, not an automatic rule, and must be granted with caution and judicial circumspection, as stated in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382, and Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani, (2025) 1 SCC 753.

The Court noted that 160 bulk litres of illicit liquor had been recovered from a vehicle owned by the applicant, substantially exceeding the statutory threshold of fifty bulk litres under Section 59-A(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act.

Since the alleged offence was under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act and the material facts attracted the statutory prohibition, the Court held that the anticipatory-bail application could not lawfully be entertained, irrespective of the applicant’s assertions that he was not driving the vehicle, lacked knowledge of the contraband, and had no criminal antecedents.

The Court therefore did not undertake a detailed examination of the merits of the prosecution case.

The application was accordingly dismissed.