SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 376

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Shailendra Kushwaha – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 31/2026



Advocates:
Neeraj Pathak[P-1],Advocate General[R-1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY

th

ON THE 15 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 31 of 2026

SHAILENDRA KUSHWAHA

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Appearance:

Shri Neeraj Pathak, Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Raghuwar Prajapati, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

ORDER has been made accused. He emphasizes that at-best the offence would be under Section 39 of the Excise Act. He further submits that the owner of the vehicle namely Sanjya Kumar has been admitted to bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.12.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.56053/2025. On these premise, learned counsel prays that the applicant may also be granted bail.

This is second application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') by the applicant for grant of regular bail relating to Crime No.464/2025 registered at Police Station N.K.J. District Katni, for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of MP

Excise Act. The applicant is in custody since 28.10.2025.

2. As per the prosecution case, 10584 bulk litre of liquor was seized which was transported in a vehicle although under licence but beyond the permitted route. On that basis, the offence has been registered against the

accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant sanguinely submits that the applicant is a driver of the vehicle from which 10584 bulk litre of liquor was seized. He further submits that the liquor was transported from one place to another however due to change of route mentioned in permit, the applicant

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application and prays for its dismissal.

5. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the applicant was driver and owner of the vehicle has already been granted bail and the offence would at-best be under Section 39 of the Excise Act, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Thus, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this application is allowed.

6. It is directed that the present applicant namely Shailendra Kushwaha shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned for his appearance before the said Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this regard during pendency of the trial. It is further directed that the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 480 (3) of BNSS.

7. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.

(RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)

JUDGE Sudesh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top