Bail granted in excise offense citing parity, completed investigation, and absence of criminal antecedents.

The applicant, Laxman Singh, was arrested on January 22, 2026, after being intercepted by police while traveling on a motorcycle in Ujjain.

Upon inspection, 62.250 bulk liters of illicit country-made and foreign liquor were recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused Vicky Yadav.

Consequently, Crime No. 32/2026 was registered at Police Station Neelganga for offences under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.

The applicant has remained in judicial custody since his arrest, and the investigation has concluded with the submission of the final report.

The applicant sought bail on the grounds of false implication, parity with the co-accused (who was granted bail on March 9, 2026), and the absence of criminal antecedents.

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of the offence and the period of incarceration.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

It considered Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, regarding the unlawful transport of intoxicants.

The court further observed the procedural requirement for speedy trials under Section 346 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.) regarding the examination of witnesses.

The decision was guided by the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly where the accused has no criminal history and the investigation is complete.

The court analyzed the merits of the bail application by weighing the gravity of the offence against the applicant's personal circumstances.

It noted that the applicant is a 48-year-old carpenter with no prior criminal record, which mitigated the risk of recidivism or tampering with evidence.

The court observed that since the final report had already been filed, the applicant’s continued incarceration was no longer necessary for investigation purposes.

Furthermore, the court applied the principle of parity, noting that the co-accused, Vicky Yadav, had already been extended the benefit of bail.

Given that the offence is triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) and the trial is expected to take time, the court determined that there was no compelling reason to deny liberty.

The holding was contingent upon several conditions: the applicant must attend all court hearings, refrain from committing similar offences, and must not induce or threaten witnesses.

The court held that the applicant demonstrated sufficient socio-economic stability and a lack of criminal propensity to ensure he would not flee from justice.

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial, subject to the trial court's power to cancel bail in the event of a breach of conditions.