Bail warranted where illicit liquor recovery lacks direct possession and rests solely on co-accused statements.

The applicant filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

He was arrested on March 21, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 112/2025 for an offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.

The prosecution case is based on a raid where 54 bulk litres of illicit liquor were seized from a child in conflict with law, who alleged he procured the liquor on the applicant’s instructions.

The applicant was subsequently arrested via a warrant.

He argued that he was falsely implicated based solely on the co-accused's statement and that no liquor was recovered from his direct possession.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the liquor was not seized from his direct or conscious possession.

2. Whether the absence of criminal antecedents and the lack of corroborative evidence justify the applicant's release pending trial.

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

It considered the penal provisions of Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.

The court relied on the principle that bail may be granted where there is an absence of incriminating material—such as Call Detail Reports (CDR) or a money trail—and no likelihood of recidivism or tampering with evidence.

The court found that the illicit liquor was not recovered from the applicant's "active, conscious, direct or immediate possession".

It emphasized the lack of corroborative evidence, such as CDR or a money trail, to link the applicant to the transaction described by the child in conflict with law.

The court noted that the applicant is a 28-year-old labourer with no reported criminal antecedents and significant family responsibilities.

Given these socio-economic factors and the fact that the offence is triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), the court concluded there was no compelling reason to justify continued incarceration.

It further determined that there was no evidence suggesting a risk of the applicant fleeing from justice or influencing witnesses.

The holding is subject to five specific conditions: (1) mandatory attendance at all hearings; (2) refraining from committing similar offences; (3) no inducement or threats to persons acquainted with the facts; (4) no tampering with evidence; and (5) compliance with Section 346 of the BNSS regarding the examination of witnesses.

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial unless a breach of conditions occurs.