Section 59-A(i) of the M.P. Excise Act bars anticipatory bail for Section 34(2) offences involving over 50 bulk litres.

The applicant filed his first application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 415/2026 registered at Police Station Shahpura, District Dindori, for offences under Section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

The applicant claimed false implication, contending that the only material against him was the memorandum of a co-accused, that no recovery was to be made from him, and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary

The State opposed the application

The case diary indicated recovery of 1,500 litres of illicit liquor, valued at ₹16,03,040, from a pick-up vehicle, and the liquor was recorded as being related to the applicant

1. Whether the applicant could be granted anticipatory bail in a prosecution under Section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act where 1,500 litres of liquor had allegedly been recovered?

2. Whether Section 59-A(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act barred the Court from entertaining the anticipatory-bail application?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing anticipatory bail, read with Section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act.

It relied principally on Section 59-A(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, which prohibits 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 further relied on Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382, for the principle that anticipatory bail is not a matter of right or a routine remedy and must be granted cautiously and judiciously, particularly where it may prejudice investigation

It also referred to Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani, (2025) 1 SCC 753, reiterating that anticipatory bail should be granted only with a high degree of circumspection

The Court found that the alleged recovery substantially exceeded the statutory threshold of fifty bulk litres, since 1,500 litres of illicit liquor had been recovered, and the material before the Court connected the liquor with the applicant

On a plain reading of Section 59-A(i), the Court held that the provision created a statutory embargo against entertaining an anticipatory-bail application in such circumstances

The coordinate-Bench decisions cited by the applicant were distinguished because, although they granted anticipatory bail in cases involving Section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, they had not considered or discussed the effect of Section 59-A(i)

In view of the statutory prohibition and the restrictive principles governing anticipatory bail, the Court held that it was not legally permissible to entertain the application

The first application for anticipatory bail was consequently dismissed