Bail Granted for Possession of Illicit Liquor; Prior Minor Offenses Not Major Impediment.

The applicant, Gopal, filed a first application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for bail in connection with Crime No. 940/2025 registered at Police Station Industrial Area Ratlam, District Ratlam, for an offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.

Gopal has been in judicial custody since 17.12.2025.

The prosecution alleges that on 17.12.2025, Sub Inspector Dhyan Singh Solanki conducted a raid at Gopal's house and recovered 277.75 bulk liters of country-made raw and foreign liquor without a license or permit.

The applicant contends false implication, stating the recovery place does not belong to him, the liquor was not seized from his active possession, and the final report has been submitted.

The state opposes bail citing two criminal antecedents.

The applicant clarifies that he was sentenced to imprisonment of TRC and a fine in Crime No. 308/2015 and acquitted in Crime No. 503/2021, and has not been convicted for any major offence.

1. Whether the applicant, Gopal, should be granted bail in connection with Crime No. 940/2025 under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for the grant of bail.

It also considered the provisions of Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, concerning the offence.

The court also referred to the general principles of bail jurisprudence, which include evaluating the likelihood of the applicant fleeing from justice, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses, and the gravity and nature of the alleged offence.

The court analyzed the applicant's contentions that he was falsely implicated and that the place of recovery did not belong to him, finding that these claims had prima facie merit and could not be dismissed as baseless.

The court noted that the trial would take time to conclude, and the veracity of the prosecution's case and the applicant's complicity would be determined only after evidence in the trial.

Considering the applicant's family responsibilities, the court found no possibility of him fleeing from justice.

Despite the state's reference to criminal antecedents, the court acknowledged the applicant's clarification that he had mainly trivial offenses and no conviction for any major offence.

Given the applicant's socio-economic status and the non-heinous nature of the offence (triable by JMFC), the court found no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Therefore, the court concluded there was no compelling reason to continue his incarceration.

The application was allowed, and applicant Gopal was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the same amount, subject to conditions including appearance at hearings, not committing similar offences, and not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

This order is effective until the end of the trial, with the trial court retaining the power to cancel bail for breach of conditions.