Bail granted in Excise Act case where independent seizure witnesses turned hostile during trial.

The applicant was apprehended on 01.10.2025 following a police search at P.S. Gosalpur, where 63 bulk liters of illicit country-made liquor were seized from his possession

He was charged under Sections 34(2) and 42 of the M.P. Excise Act and has been in judicial custody since the date of arrest

A previous bail application (M.Cr.C. No. 48251/2025) was withdrawn on 04.11.2025

This second application followed the examination of independent seizure witnesses, Ramavtar (PW/1) and Monu Chourasiya (PW/2), both of whom failed to support the prosecution’s case

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the hostile testimony of seizure witnesses and the duration of his incarceration

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) regarding the discretionary power of the High Court to grant bail

Sections 34(2) and 42 of the M.P. Excise Act concerning the illegal possession of liquor

The principle that the necessity of continued incarceration must be weighed against the socio-economic status of the accused, the likelihood of recidivism, and the pace of the trial, as well as Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (corresponding to Section 309 of Cr.P.C.) regarding the expeditious examination of witnesses

The court reasoned that because the primary independent seizure witnesses (PW/1 and PW/2) did not support the prosecution, the veracity of the applicant's complicity has become a matter to be determined strictly during the trial

The Court observed that the applicant is a 48-year-old laborer with dependent family members and, despite three criminal antecedents (two resulting in minor sentences and one pending), there was no immediate evidence of a likelihood to flee justice or tamper with evidence

Given that the offence is triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class and the trial is likely to consume significant time, the court found no compelling reason to justify continued pre-trial detention

It ordered the release of Premlal Kushwaha upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the same amount. The bail is subject to conditions including mandatory attendance at all hearings, a prohibition against committing similar offences, and a prohibition against tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses. The Court further directed that the trial court may consider the cancellation of bail if any conditions are breached