Examination of material witnesses and absence of prior convictions justify bail despite numerous criminal antecedents.

The applicant was intercepted by police on January 9, 2026, while transporting 60 bulk liters of country-made raw liquor on a motorcycle without a valid license

Crime No. 07/2026 was registered at Police Station Badawada, District Ratlam, for an offense punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act

The applicant has remained in judicial custody since his arrest on the date of the incident

A previous bail application (M.Cr.C. No. 10242 of 2026) was dismissed as withdrawn on March 10, 2026, with liberty to renew the prayer following the examination of seizure witnesses

After the trial court examined seizure witnesses Babusingh (PW.1) and Dasarath Singh (PW.2), the applicant filed this second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, following the examination of material seizure witnesses

2. Whether the applicant's criminal antecedents and the nature of the alleged offense under the Excise Act necessitate continued incarceration

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

It considered Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, which penalizes the possession or transport of illicit liquor

Furthermore, the court relied on the principle that bail may be granted when there is no likelihood of recidivism, tampering with evidence, or fleeing from justice, especially considering the accused's socio-economic status and the lack of previous convictions

The court observed that the primary prosecution witnesses—the independent seizure witnesses—had already been examined, thereby minimizing the risk of the applicant tampering with evidence

Addressing the State’s opposition regarding nine criminal antecedents, the court noted the applicant's submission that he had been acquitted in three of those cases and had never been convicted in any matter

The court reasoned that as an agricultural laborer with family responsibilities, the applicant was unlikely to flee or influence witnesses

Given that the trial would consume significant time and the applicant had already been incarcerated for three months, the court found no compelling reason to continue his detention, stating that his complicity would be determined during the trial

The holding was subject to the applicant furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety of the like amount

The court imposed specific conditions, including mandatory attendance at all hearings, a prohibition on committing similar offenses, and strict adherence to Section 346 of the BNSS regarding the examination of witnesses

The court further ordered that the trial court may consider cancellation of bail should any of these conditions be breached