### Disclosure statement of co-accused without independent corroborating evidence warrants grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant, Kulvinder Shing, was implicated in Crime No. 16 of 2026 after police seized 55 litres of illicit liquor from co-accused Pushpendra and Pawan.

During interrogation under Section 23(2) of the Evidence Act, the co-accused stated the liquor was manufactured for the applicant and others.

While liquor was subsequently seized from other co-accused (Sitte and Ranjit), no recovery was made directly from the applicant, nor was he arrested at the time of the seizure.

The applicant filed this first application seeking anticipatory bail, claiming false implication based solely on disclosure statements.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given that his implication rests solely on the disclosure statements of co-accused.

The court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 438 CrPC), governing the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest.

Substantively, the case involved Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act strictly prohibiting the possession of illicit liquor.

The court also considered Section 23(2) of the Evidence Act regarding the admissibility and weight of disclosure statements made by co-accused during police interrogation.

The primary principle applied was the judicial discretion to grant pre-arrest bail where there is a lack of direct evidence and no perceived risk of the applicant fleeing from justice.

The Court examined the prosecution's case, noting that the primary link between the applicant and the crime was the disclosure statement of co-accused persons recorded during police interrogation.

The Court weighed the applicant's argument that no illicit liquor was seized from his person and no independent or direct evidence had surfaced to connect him to the 125 litres of seized liquor.

In applying the law to these facts, the Court found that the material on record did not suggest the applicant was a flight risk.

Consequently, because the implication was based on statements of other accused and lacked corroborative physical recovery from the applicant, the Court determined that custodial interrogation was not warranted at this stage.

It held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety.

The holding is subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation/trial, no tampering with witnesses or evidence, and seeking permission before leaving the country.