The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that mere association with co-accused, without direct evidence linking an accused to the contraband or to the specific possessors, cannot justify denial of bail. This order reinforces the principle that pre-trial detention must be grounded in concrete, individualized risk assessment - not speculative inferences drawn from circumstantial or hearsay evidence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Dhanraj Lodhi, is accused in Crime No. 306/2026 registered at Police Station Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur, Madhya Pradesh, for an offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act. The case arises from the recovery of 61.92 bulk liters of illicit liquor from the possession of two co-accused, Suraj and Aniket. The prosecution alleges that Dhanraj Lodhi, along with three others, made the liquor available to them. The sole basis for implicating Dhanraj Lodhi is a memorandum statement made by one of the possessors, which names him as a supplier.
Key Facts
- The illicit liquor (61.92 bulk liters) was recovered from Suraj and Aniket on or about 05.05.2026.
- The memorandum of Suraj and Aniket names Dhanraj Lodhi and three others as suppliers.
- Dhanraj Lodhi was arrested on 06.05.2026 and has been in custody since then.
- The prosecution relies on call detail records (CDR) and Customer Acquisition Forms (CAF) showing communication between Dhanraj Lodhi’s mobile number and three other co-accused - Sandeep, Durgesh, and Virendra - during the relevant period.
- The mobile number used by Dhanraj Lodhi is registered in the name of his deceased brother, Kaju.
- There is no CDR or CAF evidence showing any communication between Dhanraj Lodhi and the actual possessors of the liquor, Suraj and Aniket.
- Dhanraj Lodhi has a prior criminal record with 15 pending cases, including 8 cases under the M.P. Excise Act.
- Dhanraj Lodhi claims he has been targeted by police due to a personal rivalry stemming from the death of his brother in 2023, after which he filed multiple complaints against police officers.
Procedural History
- 05.05.2026: Recovery of 61.92 bulk liters of liquor from Suraj and Aniket.
- 06.05.2026: Arrest of Dhanraj Lodhi.
- 15.05.2026: Court granted regular bail to co-accused Aniket Patel in M.Cr.C. No. 20419/2026.
- 15.05.2026: Court granted regular bail to co-accused Suraj in M.Cr.C. No. 20426/2026.
- 16.06.2026: Court directed SHO and Investigation Officer to appear in person to explain evidentiary basis.
- 29.06.2026: Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed for regular bail.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
- The applicant has no direct connection to Suraj and Aniket, the possessors of the liquor.
- The CDR evidence does not link him to the possessors; it only shows contact with three other co-accused, who were also implicated solely on the basis of the memorandum.
- The memorandum is uncorroborated hearsay and cannot form the sole basis for detention.
- He has no apprehension of absconding or tampering with evidence.
- His prior cases are not convictions and do not establish a pattern of flight risk.
- His detention is retaliatory, stemming from his complaints against police officers after his brother’s death.
For the Respondent/State
- The CDR and CAF reports show communication between the applicant and other co-accused, indicating involvement in the conspiracy.
- The applicant has a history of 15 criminal cases, including 8 similar excise offences, indicating a propensity for such crimes.
- The nature of the offence - large-scale illicit liquor trade - warrants strict scrutiny for bail.
- The memorandum, though hearsay, is part of the investigation record and cannot be ignored.
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with conditions, pending trial.
The Legal Issue
Can an accused be denied bail under the M.P. Excise Act solely on the basis of an uncorroborated memorandum of a co-accused and mobile call records that do not connect him to the actual possessors of the contraband?
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
The applicant’s counsel relied on State of M.P. v. Rameshwar and Kalyan Singh v. State of U.P. to argue that bail cannot be denied merely because of prior cases or uncorroborated statements. He emphasized that the absence of any communication between the applicant and the possessors of the liquor renders the prosecution’s case speculative. He further cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that arrest and detention must be justified by individualized risk, not generalized suspicion.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the CDR and CAF reports, when viewed cumulatively, establish a nexus between the applicant and the conspiracy. It argued that the applicant’s prior record of 15 cases, including 8 excise offences, demonstrates a recurring pattern and justifies heightened caution. The State also relied on State of U.P. v. Anil Kumar to assert that in cases involving contraband, courts must consider the scale of the offence and the likelihood of recurrence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidentiary record. It noted that while the prosecution presented CDRs linking the applicant to three co-accused, there was no evidence - mobile or otherwise - connecting him to Suraj and Aniket, the actual possessors of the liquor. The Court observed that the memorandum naming the applicant was the only direct accusation, and such statements, without corroboration, are inherently unreliable.
"There is no call detail record showing contact through mobile phone between the present applicant and co-accused persons namely Suraj and Aniket from whose possession the liquor was recovered."
The Court further emphasized that the co-accused possessors had already been granted bail, undermining the State’s argument that the applicant posed a unique risk. The Court held that prior criminal cases, without convictions, cannot be the sole basis for denying bail, particularly where the current charge lacks direct evidentiary support.
The Court also rejected the notion that the applicant’s past complaints against police officers rendered his detention legitimate. It stated that such allegations, even if true, do not justify circumvention of procedural safeguards under the BNSS.
The Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case of active participation by the applicant in the offence. The absence of a direct link to the possessors, combined with the grant of bail to those very possessors, rendered continued detention unjustified.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court granted regular bail to Dhanraj Lodhi upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of like amount, to be approved by the trial court. The applicant is directed to comply with Section 480(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court further warned that any subsequent registration of a similar excise offence against him shall be treated as a violation of bail conditions, leading to automatic cancellation of this order and further legal action.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Evidentiary Link Must Be Direct, Not Speculative
- Practitioners must challenge bail denials based solely on uncorroborated memoranda or indirect CDR links.
- If the accused is not linked by communication, location, or physical evidence to the actual possessors or contraband, bail should be granted.
- Courts must distinguish between association and active participation in contraband offences.
Prior Cases Alone Cannot Justify Denial of Bail
- A history of similar charges, without convictions, does not establish flight risk or likelihood of reoffending.
- Courts must assess each case on its own evidentiary merits, not on the basis of past allegations.
- The burden remains on the prosecution to show a real and present risk, not a speculative one.
Bail to Co-Accused Undermines Denial to Others
- When co-accused directly involved in possession are granted bail, denial to others without stronger evidence becomes arbitrary.
- This creates a precedent for arguing parity in bail decisions within the same case.
- Advocates should cite this order to challenge inconsistent bail rulings in multi-accused contraband cases.
