Grant of bail in excise offence where identity of escaping driver was based on eyewitness testimony without TIP.

The applicant, Rahul Singh, filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

He was arrested on January 10, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 454/2025.

The prosecution alleged that an Excise officer intercepted a Maruti-Suzuki S-Presso containing 147 bulk liters of illicit liquor; the driver escaped, but a witness identified the applicant as the driver.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated based on suspicion, no recovery was made from him personally, and no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted.

His first bail application was dismissed on February 12, 2026, with liberty to refile with an explanation of criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail despite having six criminal antecedents, considering the nature of the evidence and the period of incarceration.

The Court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

It further considered Sections 34(1)(A) and 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, regarding the penalties for unlawful transport/possession of liquor.

The court also assessed the relevance of criminal antecedents and the procedural requirement of Test Identification Parades in cases of fleeting witness identification.

The Court evaluated the gravity of the offense against the applicant's socio-economic status as an agriculturist and his family responsibilities.

While the State opposed bail citing six criminal antecedents, the applicant's counsel clarified that these resulted in minor sentences (TRC and fine) or acquittals, with only one trial remaining pending.

The Court noted significant investigative gaps, specifically that the identification was made by a witness in the dark and no formal TIP was conducted to verify the applicant's complicity.

Since the offense is triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) and the investigation was nearing completion, the Court reasoned there was no compelling need for continued incarceration or a high risk of tampering with evidence.

The Court answered that the applicant’s right to liberty outweighed the need for custody given the evidentiary status.

The holding was subject to stringent conditions, including that the applicant must mark his presence at the Badnagar Police Station every Saturday until the conclusion of the trial and must not commit any similar offenses.

Any breach of these conditions permits the trial court to consider cancellation of bail.