### Bail Granted Under Section 34(2) Excise Act Considering Custody Period and Lack of Major Convictions

The applicants, Dayaram and Sanju, were apprehended on February 12, 2026, at Yatri Pratikshalaya near Rola Magra Tiraha by the Ringnod Police.

Upon search, 60 bulk liters of illicit country-made raw liquor and a motorcycle were seized from their joint possession.

Consequently, an FIR was registered under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, and the applicants have remained in judicial custody since their arrest.

The applicants moved this first bail application before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, contending false implication and lack of conscious possession.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of the offence and their period of incarceration.

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

Substantively, the case involves Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, concerning the illegal possession and transportation of liquor.

The Court considered established bail jurisprudence, including the socio-economic status of the accused, the nature of the offence (not heinous or brutal), the completion of the investigation, and the lack of flight risk or potential for witness tampering.

The Court observed that while the State opposed bail citing criminal antecedents—three against Dayaram and one against Sanju—the applicants demonstrated that several prior cases resulted in acquittals, and no major convictions were on record.

The Court noted that the applicants are labourers with family responsibilities, suggesting a low risk of fleeing justice.

Critically, the Court found that since the investigation is almost complete and the applicants have been in custody since February 12, 2026, further custodial interrogation is unnecessary.

The Court determined that the veracity of the prosecution’s claims regarding "joint possession" is a matter for trial, and there was no compelling evidence to suggest that the applicants would influence witnesses if released.

The holding is conditioned upon each applicant furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with a solvent surety of the same amount.

The Court imposed specific conditions, including mandatory attendance at all trial hearings, a prohibition against committing similar offences, and a strict bar on tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses.

Any breach of these conditions allows the Trial Court to consider the cancellation of bail.