Implication solely on co-accused’s memorandum statement without recovery justifies grant of regular bail.

The applicant, a manager of a licensed liquor shop in Madhya Pradesh, was arrested on January 6, 2026, in connection with a raid conducted on December 17, 2025.

During the raid at the house of co-accused Birbal Verma in Dongargarh, Chhattisgarh, police seized 62.64 bulk liters of illegal M.P.-manufactured liquor bearing forged Chhattisgarh excise labels.

The applicant was not named in the initial FIR; his involvement was based solely on a memorandum statement provided by co-accused Rajpal Bhatiya, who claimed the liquor was purchased from the shop where the applicant worked.

No recovery of contraband was made directly from the applicant.

The applicant moved the High Court for regular bail, citing his status as a licensed employee and his lack of criminal history.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given that his implication was based on a co-accused’s statement and no recovery was made from his possession.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant bail.

The substantive offences were registered under Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the C.G. Excise Act and Sections 339, 366(3), and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The Court relied on the principle that bail may be granted when the accused has no criminal antecedents and the trial is likely to be protracted.

The Court examined the nature of the evidence against the applicant, noting that his implication rested entirely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused rather than direct recovery or initial identification in the FIR.

The Court weighed the state’s opposition—which highlighted the applicant's role as the manager of the source shop—against the fact that the applicant had been in custody since January 6, 2026, and possessed no prior criminal record.

The Court reasoned that since the trial's conclusion would take considerable time and the applicant had already undergone a period of detention without any reported criminal history, his continued incarceration was not warranted.

To mitigate risks of flight or non-cooperation, the Court determined that bail should be granted subject to specific procedural undertakings.

The Court allowed the bail application, directing the applicant's release on a personal bond with two local sureties.

The relief was conditioned upon the applicant filing an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments, appearing on every trial date, and remaining present for specific stages including the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

Failure to comply would permit the trial court to treat the default as an abuse of liberty.