Section 59-A(i) bars courts from entertaining anticipatory bail applications for Section 34(2) offences involving over 50 bulk litres.

On 18 June 2026, the police, acting on secret information, found an unattended white Hyundai Accent car near Vihan Factory, Jarapur Road, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Budhni, District Sehore.

Search of the vehicle resulted in the seizure of 105.12 litres of country-made liquor. The FIR was initially registered against an unknown person under Section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915.

During investigation, co-accused Shubham Manjhi and Nikky alias Ajit Singh Rajput were arrested. On the basis of Nikky’s memorandum statement, the prosecution alleged that the liquor had been purchased from a person named Bhargav using mobile number 9329845416.

Call-detail records allegedly showed that the number was registered in the applicant Shiv Kumar’s name, leading to his implication. The applicant thereafter filed his first anticipatory-bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 256/2026.

Whether the applicant’s anticipatory-bail application could be entertained in view of the statutory bar under Section 59-A(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, particularly when the prosecution alleged recovery of 105.12 litres of liquor in an offence under Section 34(2) of the Act?

Whether, considering the allegations, the nature of the offence, and the statutory embargo, the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure governing anticipatory bail, together with Section 59-A(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, which provides that no anticipatory-bail application shall be entertained in specified excise offences involving liquor exceeding fifty bulk litres, notwithstanding the general provisions of criminal procedure.

The Court further relied on Srikant Upadhyay and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2024) 12 SCC 382, for the principle that anticipatory bail is not a matter of right or a general rule and must be granted cautiously so as not to obstruct investigation or facilitate tampering with evidence.

It also relied on Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani, (2025) 1 SCC 753, which reiterates that anticipatory-bail jurisdiction must be exercised with a high degree of circumspection and not routinely.

The Court noted that the prosecution case concerned the alleged seizure of 105.12 litres of liquor, exceeding the statutory threshold referred to in Section 59-A(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act.

Although the applicant contended that he had been implicated only on the basis of a co-accused’s memorandum statement and call-detail records, the Court held that the merits of the prosecution case were not required to be examined at the bail stage.

Applying the statutory embargo, the Court concluded that the anticipatory-bail application was legally not entertainable.

The Court additionally emphasized the exceptional nature of anticipatory bail and the need for caution in cases involving serious allegations and potential interference with investigation.

The application was accordingly dismissed, and no anticipatory-bail relief was granted to Shiv Kumar.