Completion of investigation justifies bail in excise offences despite criminal history and pending trials.

The applicant, Salim, was apprehended on January 17, 2026, by the Biora City Police after being intercepted on a motorcycle

A search conducted by the police led to the recovery of 80 bulk liters of illicit country-made raw liquor from the joint possession of the applicant and a co-accused

Consequently, an FIR was registered under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915

The applicant sought bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, following the completion of the investigation and the submission of the final report

The State opposed the application, citing eight criminal antecedents against the applicant

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the nature of the offense and his criminal history

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

It also considered Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, which penalizes the unlawful transport of large quantities of intoxicants

The court relied on the principle that bail is a rule and jail is an exception, particularly when the investigation is complete, the trial is triable by a Magistrate, and there is no immediate risk of the accused fleeing or tampering with evidence

The court examined the prosecution's allegations alongside the applicant's defense.

It noted that the investigation was concluded and a charge sheet had been filed, reducing the risk of interference with the probe

Regarding the eight criminal antecedents, the court accepted the applicant's clarification that he had been acquitted in four instances and the remainder were pending without any prior convictions

The court reasoned that given the applicant’s socio-economic background as an agriculturist with family responsibilities, there was no significant likelihood of recidivism or flight from justice

As the offense is triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class and the trial would reasonably take time to conclude, the court found no "compelling reason" to justify continued pre-trial incarceration

The holding was subject to specific conditions: the applicant must attend all court hearings, refrain from committing similar offenses, and must not induce or threaten witnesses or tamper with evidence

The court clarified that the trial court retains the authority to cancel bail in the event of a breach of these conditions