Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhupendra Mahor vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16327
1 MCRC-31747-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 1 st OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 31747 of 2025
BHUPENDRA MAHOR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Aniket Bhadoria - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Harish Sharma - P.P. for respondent/State.
ORDER
1. The applicant has filed the first bail application under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023/439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking grant of regular bail in connection with
Crime No.311/2021 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, District Gwalior
(M.P.) for the alleged commission of offence under Section 34 enhanced Section
49-A of Excise Act.
2 . Allegation against the present applicant is that police apprehended the
applicant and recovered from his possession 4 litres of illicit country made liqour,
for which, the applicant was not having valid and effective license.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated. Counsel for the applicant further submits
that initially, he was not arrested and was enlarged after conducting the
proceedings under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C., however, at the time of filing of
challan, the offence under Section 49-A of the Excise Act was enhanced but the
applicant was not having any information and therefore, he could not appear
before the trial Court. It is when the warrant was issued by the learned trial Court,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16327
2 MCRC-31747-2025
the applicant has surrendered. The applicant is in custody since 03.07.2025.
The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that early
conclusion of the trial is bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention is an
anathema to the concept of liberty. The applicant is resident of District - Gwalior
(M.P.) and there is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with the
prosecution evidence, if released on bail. Hence, learned counsel for the applicant
prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.
4 . On the other hand , learned counsel for the State opposes the bail
application and prays for its rejection.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, so far as
Section 49 (A) of M.P. Excise Act is concerned, wherein, seized liqour was found
unfit for human consumption, the said aspect is required to be taken into
consideration by the trial court at the time of passing the final judgment.
However, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is
allowed and it is directed that applicant be released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) along with
one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court/Committal Court.
7. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following
conditions by the applicant:-
i) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond
executed by him;
ii) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
iii) The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16327
3 MCRC-31747-2025
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case
may be;
iv) The applicant will not commit any other offence in future. In case
offence of same nature is repeated, this bail order shall automatically stand
cancelled;
v) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;
and
vi) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the
trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
8. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.
9. Certified copy as per rules.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Van
