Anticipatory bail granted despite criminal history where no flight risk was established.

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 72/2023 registered at Police Station Behat, District Gwalior, for an offence under Section 49(A) of the Excise Act.

The prosecution alleged that expired beer was being sold at an English liquor shop at Dagiyapura.

During a search, the applicant and co-accused Ramavatar Singh Kushwah were found present as shop attendants, and 165.100 bulk litres of beer allegedly beyond its six-month shelf life were seized as unfit for human consumption.

The license-holder, Laxman Shivhare, was also implicated.

The applicant claimed false implication, asserted that he had been in custody since 18 August 2026, and relied on the grant of bail to co-accused Laxman Shivhare by a coordinate Bench on 13 March 2026.

The State opposed the application on the basis of the applicant’s criminal history in four cases.

1. Whether, having regard to the allegations under Section 49(A) of the Excise Act, the applicant’s custody, the parity claimed with the co-accused, and the surrounding circumstances, he was entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS.

2. Whether the applicant’s alleged criminal antecedents constituted sufficient ground to deny bail.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of bail by the High Court or Court of Session.

It considered the nature of the accusation under Section 49(A) of the Excise Act, the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice, the risk of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, the applicant’s willingness to cooperate, and the principle of parity with a co-accused already granted bail.

The Court also exercised its discretion without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

The Court noted that the prosecution case concerned the alleged sale or possession of expired beer seized from the liquor shop, where the applicant was present as an attendant.

Although the State relied on the applicant’s four previous cases, the Court found that the material on record did not disclose a likelihood of his fleeing from justice.

The applicant’s permanent residence in Gwalior, undertaking to cooperate, willingness to furnish surety, and the grant of bail to co-accused Laxman Shivhare supported the exercise of discretion in his favour.

On that assessment, the Court concluded that the applicant deserved the benefit of bail, without determining the merits of the alleged offence.

The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring compliance with the bond, cooperation with the investigation/trial, non-interference with witnesses, avoidance of unnecessary adjournments, and obtaining prior permission before leaving India.

He was further directed to mark his presence on the first Sunday of every month until conclusion of the trial, failing which the bail would stand automatically cancelled.

The order also provided that if the FSL report established that the seized liquor was poisonous or unfit for human consumption, the bail would automatically stand cancelled and the applicant would have to surrender forthwith.