Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 9229
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar, J
Prashant @ Lucky Soni – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 54226 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Harshwardhan Sharma
For the Respondents: Romil Verma
Statutory restrictions on bail for excise offences involving specific quantities of liquor do not apply automatically. Courts must engage in a prima facie assessment; a co-accused's custodial statement alone is inadmissible substantive evidence and insufficient to establish the prima facie case required to trigger a total bail bar.
Headnote:(A) M.P. Excise Act - Section 34(2) and Section 59-A - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Grant of regular bail - Offence relates to recovery of illicit liquor exceeding fifty bulk litres - Limitation for grant of bail under special statute should be strictly construed to protect human liberty - Prohibition applies only when a prima facie case under the Act is established - (Paras 7, 8, 20 and 22)
(B) Evidence Act - Section 25, 26 and 30 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Cr.P.C. - Section 161 and 162 - Admissibility of confession - Statements/confessions made to officer during investigation are inadmissible unless made in presence of Magistrate or result in discovery of incriminating material - Mere statement/confession by co-accused containing incriminating matter against a person would not, by itself, suffice to frame charge or constitute prima facie case to attract statutory bar on bail. (Paras 17, 18, 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought regular bail for an offence involving the recovery of 153 bulk litres of illicit liquor from a vehicle. The applicant was implicated solely based on the custodial statement of a co-accused. No incriminating material was seized from the applicant's possession, nor was there evidence of communication logs or financial trails connecting him to the alleged crime. Lower courts had denied bail citing the statutory interdict against bail for offences involving specified quantities of liquor under the special act.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the statutory bar on bail under the excise law does not operate automatically upon mere accusation but requires a prima facie case. As the prosecution relied exclusively on an inadmissible confession of a co-accused without independent corroborating evidence, the rigorous conditions for bail denial were not satisfied.
Issues: Whether the statutory bar on bail under the special act applies when the accused is not found in possession of the illicit material and is implicated only via a co-accused's custodial statement.
Ratio Decidendi: Statutory restrictions on bail must be construed to prioritize personal liberty. A court must make a prima facie determination of guilt based on material beyond an inadmissible custodial confession. If such material is absent, the restriction on bail does not apply, and the applicant is entitled to relief.
Result: Application allowed; bail granted subject to execution of a personal bond and standard conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of factual background, core allegations, and bail contentions. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 17) |
| 2. interpretation of special statutes and bail bars (section 59-a excise act/ndps/mcoca). (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. inadmissibility of statements made to police and weak evidentiary value of co-accused confessions. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 4. criteria for lifting statutory bail bars; lack of prima facie evidence. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. court grants bail based on socio-economic status and lack of criminal antecedents. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
ORDER
This first application has been filed by applicant under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.154/2025 registered at Police Station Kalipeeth(Piplodi), District Rajgarh(M.P.) for offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act . Applicant is in judicial custody since 17.11.2025.
2. Heard the arguments.
3. Perused the grounds for grant of bail stated in the application, case diary and the relevant material on record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the application, submits that the applicant is falsely implicated in the alleged offence on the basis of information given by co-accused Ankit in police custody. He has not committed the alleged offence. The illicit liquor was not recovered from the active and conscious possession of the applicant. The final report has been submitted on completion of investigation. There is no likelihood of tampering with evidence by the applicant for the reason that he is a labourer and is not able to influence the witnesses. Jail incarceration is causing hardship to the applicant. Applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence. However, after going through the case diary, he fairly submits that no criminal antecedent is reported against the present applicant.
6. According to the material available on case diary, Head Constable Mukesh Paveya of P.S. Kalipeeth was conducting a routine vehicle checking on 12.07.2025. He intercepted one Toyota Innova Car bearing registration No.MP-33-BB-1043 on Rajgarh road for checking. The Innova car was searched in presence of panch witnesses Akhilesh and Rajesh. On search of the vehicle, illicit country made plain liquor total quantity - 153 bulk litres was recovered from the trunk(dicky) of the vehicle. Ankit Dangi was driver of the Innova car. Ankit could not produce any valid permit/license, therefore, vehicle and illicit liquor were seized from possession of Ankit. Ankit was arrested on 12.07.2025. Ankit informed in police custody that Prashant @ Lucky Soni(applicant) has provided him the illicit liquor. No incriminating material has been seized at the instance of applicant. Applicant Prashant was given notice under Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 informing him about filing of the final report. When Prashant @ Lucky Soni appeared before the trial Court, learned JMFC took him in judicial custody and rejected his application for grant of bail vide order dated 17.11.2025 in view of the interdict contained under Section 59A of M.P. Excise Act . Applicant/ accused - Prashant @ Lucky Soni approached the Sessions Court by filing an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023. The application was rejected vide order dated 19.11.2025 again in view of the interdict contained under Section 59A of the M.P. Excise Act . He is in custody ever since.
7. Section 59A of the M.P. Excise Act reads as under :-
59A. Certain offence under the Act to be non-bailable Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974) or Section 59 of the Act,-
(i) ..................... ............................... .............................
(ii) a person, accused of an offence punishable under Section 49-A or a person not being a person ho
