Anticipatory bail is not maintainable for offences under the State Excise Act involving the recovery of illicit liquor exceeding fifty bulk litres, as the relevant statutory provision creates an explicit legislative embargo that overrides the general discretionary power of the court to grant such relief.

ORDER

This first application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.146/2026 registered at Police Station Simariya, District Panna, for commission of offence punishable under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.

2. According to the prosecution case, on 12.04.2026, Police Station Simariya, District Panna, received a credible tip-off indicating that the applicant had stored illicit liquor inside a tapra (cattle shed) used for housing his buffaloes. Acting on this intelligence, the police registered a Dehati Nalsi (Crime No. 0/2026) for an offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act. At approximately 20:30 hours on the same date, a police raiding party, which included Constable Ankit Patel and independent witness Raj Bahadur, proceeded to the designated spot. Upon reaching the tapra, the police spotted two individuals. One of the suspects managed to flee the scene, while the other, identified as Anuj Yadav (nephew of applicant), was apprehended by the police force while attempting to run away. During the subsequent search of the premises, the police discovered a pit (gaddha) covered with a sheet (cheap). Upon uncovering it, the police recovered and seized 65 litres and 700 millilitres of illegal liquor in the presence of the witnesses.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been fallaciously implicated in the alleged crime merely on the basis of memorandum of co-accused Anuj, who happens to be nephew of the applicant. He further submits that the applicant is running a business of dairy and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. He also submits that although the applicant has criminal history, but in most of the cases he has already been acquitted and only one is pending. To reinforce his submission, learned counsel places reliance on an order dated 09.05.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.20873/2025 (Ganaram Thakur v. The State of Madhya Pradesh) and also on an order dated 24.09.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.42440/2025 (Hariram Chourasiya alias Lallu Chaurasiya), both the orders have been passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court. On these premise, he prays that the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the liquor was recovered from a tapra owned and occupied by the applicant and rightly the applicant has been held exclusive constructive possession of the seized illicit liquor. She further submits that the applicant has criminal history of seven cases, out of which, four are under the M.P. Excise Act. He also submits that in view of the provisions of Section 59-A(i) of M.P. Excise Act, this anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Ergo, she prays for outright dismissal of this application.

5. At the stage of bail, the merits of the case are not quired to be examined. It is evident from the material placed on record before this Court that the illicit liquor was recovered from the tapra owned by the applicant, therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case of no evidence qua the applicant. The factum of criminal antecedents is also undisputed. Quite apart, Section 59-A(i) of M.P. Excise Act prohibits for entertaining anticipatory bail pertaining to offence under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act. So far as the orders, on which reliance has been placed, are concerned, in both the cases, the Coordinate Benches, although extended the benefit of