Bail granted for excise offense where continued incarceration lacks compelling justification and trial is pending.

The applicant, Golu, was apprehended on January 2, 2026, by the Narsinghgarh Police after being intercepted on a motorcycle with two others.

Police seized 76 bulk liters of country-made raw liquor from the possession of the applicant and a co-accused.

Consequently, an FIR was registered under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since the date of his arrest.

The applicant moved this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending false implication and noting that the investigation is complete with the final report submitted.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering the period of incarceration, the nature of the offence, and the lack of substantial criminal history.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

It further considered Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, which penalizes the unlawful possession of liquor above a specific quantity.

The court also referenced Section 309 of the CrPC/Section 346 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding the duty of the accused to ensure the timely examination of witnesses during trial.

The court balanced the State's opposition—which was based on the gravity of the offense and one criminal antecedent—against the applicant’s circumstances.

It noted that the applicant is a 25-year-old laborer with aged parents and that he had not been convicted in the past.

The court reasoned that since the investigation is complete and the trial is expected to take time, continued incarceration was not compelling.

The court found no evidence of a likelihood of recidivism, tampering with evidence, or fleeing from justice, especially given the applicant’s socio-economic status.

It emphasized that the veracity of the prosecution’s claims would be a matter for trial.

It held that the applicant should be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one solvent surety of the same amount.

The holding is subject to strict conditions: the applicant must attend all court hearings, refrain from committing similar offenses, and must not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.

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