Section 59-A(i) of the M.P. Excise Act bars anticipatory bail for Section 34(2) offences.

The applicant filed his first application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 145/2026 registered at Police Station Orchha, District Chhatarpur, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act

The prosecution alleged that 229 litres and 920 millilitres of country-made liquor were seized from co-accused Natiraj alias Deepraj, who allegedly stated in his memorandum that he had purchased the liquor from the applicant

No liquor was seized from the applicant. The applicant denied the allegation, claimed false implication arising from a monetary dispute, and undertook to cooperate with the investigation

The State opposed anticipatory bail on the ground that the seized illicit liquor had been sold by the applicant and that the allegations were serious

Whether the applicant could be granted anticipatory bail in connection with an offence under Section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act involving seizure of more than fifty bulk litres of liquor

Whether, in view of the statutory bar under Section 59-A(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, the High Court could entertain the anticipatory-bail application

The Court considered Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the application for anticipatory bail

Section 59-A(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, which bars any court from entertaining an anticipatory-bail application by a person who is not a licence-holder and is accused of an offence under Section 34(1)(a) or (b) involving more than fifty bulk litres of liquor

The Court also applied the principle that the merits of the prosecution case are ordinarily not examined in detail at the bail stage

Relying on Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382, and Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani, (2025) 1 SCC 753, the Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretionary relief, not a matter of right, and must be granted cautiously and with circumspection

The Court noted that the prosecution material attributed the sale of the seized illicit liquor to the applicant, although the seizure itself was made from the co-accused

Since the quantity allegedly involved was 229.920 litres—substantially exceeding the statutory threshold of fifty bulk litres—the Court held that the case fell within the statutory embargo contained in Section 59-A(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act

Consequently, regardless of the applicant’s defence that he had been implicated on the basis of a co-accused’s memorandum and that nothing was recovered from him, the Court held that it was not legally permissible to entertain the anticipatory-bail application

The application was therefore dismissed, and no anticipatory-bail protection was granted to the applicant