Grant of Bail Where Implication Based Solely on Co-accused Statements Without Material Evidence or Financial Trail.

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

On September 26, 2025, police intercepted an abandoned vehicle containing 72 bulk liters of illicit liquor.

Applicant No. 2 (Dheeraj) was implicated because his PAN card and driving license were found in the vehicle.

On the basis of Dheeraj’s statement in custody, co-accused Rahul was named, who in turn alleged that the liquor was procured from Applicant No. 1 (Kuldeep Singh).

Both applicants were arrested on February 17, 2026.

The applicants contended they were falsely implicated based only on suspicion and co-accused statements, noting that no liquor was recovered from their direct possession and the final report had been filed.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the nature of the evidence and their criminal antecedents.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC) regarding high court powers for bail.

It further applied Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, which penalizes the unlawful transport or possession of liquor.

The court relied on the principle of parity, noting that co-accused Rahul and Shravan had already been granted bail.

Additionally, the court considered the principles of "recidivism" and "tampering with evidence," evaluating the necessity of continued incarceration versus the socio-economic status and professional backgrounds of the accused.

The court observed that the implication of the applicants relied primarily on the recovery of documents in an abandoned vehicle and subsequent statements made by co-accused while in police custody.

It noted a lack of a "CDR or money trail" to substantiate the link between the applicants and the alleged offence.

Regarding criminal history, the Court found that Applicant No. 2 had no prior records, and while Applicant No. 1 had five reported antecedents, three resulted in acquittals and none in convictions.

The court reasoned that since the offence is triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) and the trial would be lengthy, there was no compelling reason to keep the applicants in custody, especially as they posed no flight risk or threat of influencing witnesses.

It held that the applicants are entitled to bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety of the same amount.

The Court ordered their release on the conditions that they appear at all hearings, refrain from committing similar offences, and do not tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses.

The holding emphasized that the observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.