Bail granted under Excise Act where illicit liquor was not recovered from the accused’s direct or immediate possession.

On January 30, 2026, police intercepted a vehicle (registration no. GJ.01.KV.0836) following a secret tip-off.

The driver fled the scene under the cover of darkness.

Upon searching the abandoned vehicle, police recovered 171 bulk liters of illicit country-made and foreign liquor.

Consequently, Crime No. 15/2026 was registered under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.

During the investigation, the applicant was arrested on February 14, 2026.

The applicant, a 28-year-old agriculturist, had two criminal antecedents from 2014 and 2015 involving similar excise offenses, for which he had previously been sentenced to "Till Rising of Court" (TRC) and a fine.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, given that the illicit liquor was not seized from his direct or immediate possession.

2. Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents and the nature of the offense justify continued judicial incarceration during the trial.

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

The substantive charge pertained to Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, regarding the illegal possession and transport of liquor.

The court applied the principle that bail may be granted when custodial interrogation is no longer necessary, the trial is triable by a Magistrate, and there is no significant risk of recidivism or tampering with evidence.

The court observed that the illicit liquor was recovered from an abandoned vehicle rather than from the direct possession of the applicant, lending prima-facie merit to the argument of false implication.

The court noted that the investigation was nearly complete, rendering further custodial interrogation unnecessary.

Regarding the applicant’s criminal history, the court found that since the previous cases resulted in minimal sentencing (TRC) and no other major prosecutions were pending, the applicant did not pose a substantial risk of recidivism.

Given the applicant's socio-economic status as an agriculturist with family responsibilities, the court determined there was no flight risk or likelihood of him influencing witnesses.

The court noted the offense is triable by a JMFC, and as the trial's veracity would only be determined through evidence, prolonged incarceration was not warranted.

The holding required the applicant to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety of the same amount.

The court imposed several conditions, including: mandatory attendance at all hearing dates; a prohibition on committing similar offenses; and a prohibition on inducing or threatening witnesses.

The order is effective until the conclusion of the trial, provided the applicant complies with all stated conditions.