The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the foundational principle that bail is the rule and incarceration the exception, particularly for young, first-time offenders in non-violent statutory offences. In granting regular bail to a 19-year-old accused in a country liquor seizure case, the Court emphasized constitutional protections under Article 21 and the procedural safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Arpit Chourashiya, was arrested on 11.02.2026 in connection with FIR/Crime No. 614/2026 registered at Police Station Excise Circle, Shahpura South (A), Jabalpur. The case pertains to the alleged possession of 54 bulk litres of country-made liquor, an offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915.
Key Facts
- The applicant was taken into custody on 11.02.2026 and has remained in jail since then.
- The quantity seized - 54 bulk litres - does not indicate large-scale trafficking or commercial intent.
- The applicant is 19 years of age.
- He has no prior criminal antecedents or history of involvement in excise-related offences.
- His first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn.
- The investigation is reportedly nearing completion.
Procedural History
- 11.02.2026: Arrest of applicant following seizure of country liquor.
- Before 01.04.2026: First bail application filed and subsequently withdrawn.
- 01.04.2026: Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- 01.04.2026: Hearing conducted before the High Court at Jabalpur.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought regular bail on the grounds that his detention had exceeded a reasonable period, the trial would take considerable time, and he posed no flight risk or threat to public order. He requested release on personal bond with surety, subject to standard bail conditions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the principles of bail as the rule, Article 21 of the Constitution, and the procedural framework under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 justify the release of a young, first-time accused in a non-violent statutory offence where investigation is nearly complete.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
Learned counsel submitted that the applicant, being only 19 years old and without any criminal record, was falsely implicated. He emphasized that the offence involved possession of country liquor without evidence of trafficking or distribution. The counsel argued that prolonged pre-trial detention without trial violates the right to liberty under Article 21, especially when the trial is expected to take considerable time. Reliance was placed on the doctrine that bail is the rule, jail the exception, and the procedural mandate under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 to consider the accused’s age, antecedents, and nature of offence.
For the Respondent
The State opposed bail, contending that offences under the MP Excise Act are serious and that granting bail in such cases sets a precedent that may encourage violations. No specific grounds of flight risk or tampering with evidence were advanced.
The Court's Analysis
The Court declined to evaluate the merits of the prosecution’s case, noting that bail applications are not trials. Instead, it focused on the procedural and constitutional imperatives governing pre-trial detention. The Court observed that the applicant is a minor adult with no prior record, and the offence, while statutory, does not involve violence, organized crime, or public endangerment.
"Considering that the age of the applicant i.e. 19 years and he is having no criminal antecedent coupled with the fact that the trial will take a considerable time as well as the principle 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' and also the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I deem it a fit case to release the applicant on bail."
The Court underscored that Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 codifies the judicial discretion to grant bail in non-bailable offences when the circumstances warrant it, particularly where detention would amount to undue deprivation of liberty. The Court further noted that the prosecution had not demonstrated any risk of witness tampering, evidence destruction, or flight.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court granted regular bail on the following terms: (1) a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety of like amount; (2) mandatory appearance before the trial court on all dates; (3) compliance with all conditions under Section 480(3) of BNSS, 2023; (4) bail to remain in force until the conclusion of trial; and (5) bail to stand cancelled if the applicant is found involved in a similar offence. The order is effective immediately and subject to revocation for breach of conditions.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Cannot Be Denied Solely on the Nature of the Statutory Offence
- Practitioners must argue that offences under excise, food safety, or environmental statutes do not automatically disqualify an accused from bail if they are first-time offenders with no history of evasion.
- Courts must distinguish between commercial trafficking and personal possession, especially in cases involving small quantities.
Age and Lack of Antecedents Are Material Factors
- For accused under 21 years of age with no prior convictions, courts are now expected to treat pre-trial detention as a last resort.
- The absence of criminal history must be weighed heavily against speculative concerns about future conduct.
BNSS, 2023 Reinforces Judicial Discretion in Bail Matters
- Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 empowers courts to grant bail even in non-bailable offences if the accused meets the threshold of fairness under Article 21.
- This judgment reinforces that bail decisions must be individualized - not mechanical.
Procedural Delay Must Not Become Punishment
- When investigation is complete and trial is likely to be protracted, courts must act to prevent detention becoming punitive.
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate why detention remains necessary beyond the initial custodial period.
