Bail granted where contraband recovery lacks evidence of direct, conscious, and immediate possession.

The applicant filed a first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following his arrest in connection with Crime No. 303/2025 for an offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.

On July 30, 2025, police conducted a raid at a house in village Banchda Dera Dodar, where 99 bulk liters of illicit country-made liquor were recovered from the veranda; however, the applicant was not found on-site.

The applicant contended that the house did not belong to him and that the liquor was not in his conscious possession.

While the prosecution pointed to seven criminal antecedents, the applicant demonstrated acquittals in five of those cases.

The trial court rejected his bail application on February 19, 2026, and he has remained in judicial custody since July 30, 2025.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the completion of the investigation and the nature of his alleged possession of the contraband.

Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 439 of the CrPC), which governs the special powers of the High Court regarding bail.

Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, regarding the unlawful possession of liquor in quantities exceeding 50 bulk liters.

Section 309 of the CrPC / Section 346 of the BNSS concerning the timely examination of witnesses during trial.

The court observed that the illicit liquor was not recovered from the "direct and immediate possession" of the applicant, as he was not present during the raid.

It noted that the investigation was complete and the final report (charge sheet) had already been submitted, reducing the necessity for continued custodial interrogation.

Regarding criminal antecedents, the court accepted the applicant's clarification that he had been acquitted in the majority of previous cases.

Furthermore, the court evaluated the applicant's socio-economic status as a labourer with family responsibilities, concluding there was no significant risk of him fleeing from justice, tampering with evidence, or engaging in recidivism.

The court determined that since the offence is triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) and the trial would take time to conclude, prolonged incarceration was not warranted.

The holding is contingent upon several conditions, including that the applicant must attend all hearing dates, refrain from committing similar offences, and must not induce or threaten witnesses.

The court clarified that 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.