Section 59-A(i) does not bar anticipatory bail for an alleged Section 34(2) offence.

Police found a car that had reportedly met with an accident and, on searching it, seized 180 bulk litres of foreign liquor.

The vehicle was registered to Deepak Choudhary, who had sold it to co-accused Mohd. Ashik Sheikh; the applicant was not found at the scene and was not the vehicle’s registered owner.

The case was registered under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act and Section 279 of the IPC. The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, contending that he was implicated on the basis of co-accused statements.

The State opposed the application, including on the ground that Section 59-A(i) of the Excise Act barred anticipatory bail.

Whether the bar under Section 59-A(i) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act precluded the Court from entertaining the applicant’s anticipatory-bail application.

Whether, on the facts presented, the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with the alleged offence under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

Section 482 of the BNSS provides for the grant of anticipatory bail.

Section 59-A(i) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act restricts anticipatory bail for the specified offences, including offences under Sections 49-A and 34(1)(a) or (b); the restriction does not apply merely because a provision attracting the bar is mentioned, where the offence’s essential ingredients are absent on the facts.

The Court relied on Dilip Kumar Suryavanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh (MCRCA No. 1391 of 2020, order dated 15 December 2020), which drew on Pankaj Samundre and Naresh Kumar Lahria v. State of M.P. and Others for the principle that the court may examine whether the case factually falls within the statutory bar.

The Court noted that the applicant was neither the vehicle’s registered owner nor present at the scene, and that the liquor had not been recovered from him.

It further observed that the alleged offence was under Section 34(2), whereas Section 59-A(i), as considered by the Court, applied to specified offences including Sections 34(1)(a) and (b).

On those facts, the Court held that the statutory bar did not prevent it from entertaining the application and, relying on Dilip Kumar Suryavanshi, found it appropriate to grant relief.

If arrested in connection with Crime No. 01/2024, the applicant was directed to be released on a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety for the like amount, subject to conditions concerning cooperation with investigation, non-interference with witnesses or the proceedings, and appearance before the trial court.