[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laxman Shivhare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 March, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8801
1 MCRC-9342-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 13th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9342 of 2026
LAXMAN SHIVHARE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Ayush Saxena
- Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi - GA for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This is the first application filed under Section 482 of BNSS for grant
of anticipatory bail.
The applicant apprehend his arrest in connection with Crime
No.72/2023, registered at Police Station Behat, District Gwalior in relation
to the offence punishable under Section 49(A) of the Excise Act.
The prosecution story in brief is that information was received that
expired beer was being sold at an English liquor shop located at Dagiyapura
in the house of Bachchu Singh on Behat Mau Road. Acting on this
information, Inspector Ajay Pawar along with police staff and Head
Constable Jitendra Richhariya visited the shop to verify the complaint. At the
shop, attendants Diwan Singh Kushwah and Ramavatar Singh Kushwah
were present. In their presence and in the presence of witnesses, the police
conducted a search of the shop and prepared a panchnama. During the
search, several cartons and loose bottles of different brands of beer were
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8801
2 MCRC-9342-2026
found whose shelf life of six months from the manufacturing date had
expired. In total, 165.100 bulk liters of expired beer were seized, which was
considered unfit for human consumption. Therefore, the act of the shop
attendants Diwan Singh Kushwah, Ramavatar Singh Kushwah, and the
license holder Laxman Shivhare was found to be an offence under Section
49(A) of the Excise Act, and an FIR was registered.
Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The alleged
offence is not made out against the applicant on the face of the record.
According to the prosecution story, the applicant is the licensee of the liquor
shop and the beer bottles were seized from inside the shop. The "best before
use" period of beer is six months, and the manufacturing dates of the seized
beer were 21.02.2023, 22.02.2023, and 24.02.2023. Thus, the beer was
seized within about two months after the expiry of the said period. It is
further submitted that as per Rule 9(झ) of the Madhya Pradesh Foreign
Liquor Rules, 1996, beer bottles carry a label stating that they are best for use
within six months of manufacture. After the expiry of this period, the
licensee is required to store such bottles separately and inform the Excise
Department. Failure to do so amounts only to a violation of license
conditions, for which action can be taken by the Excise Department, not by
the police. Learned counsel further submits that the police had no authority
to enter the liquor shop and seize the articles, as such inspection is to be
carried out only by authorized officers under the Excise Act. The report
regarding the seized beer only states that it was unfit for human consumption
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8801
3 MCRC-9342-2026
due to the expiry of the best-before period and does not state that it was
poisonous. Therefore, no offence under Section 49(A) of the Excise Act is
made out against the applicant.
It is also submitted that the applicant is a liquor contractor and a
permanent resident of District Gwalior. There is no likelihood of his
absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is
ready to furnish adequate surety and undertakes to comply with all
conditions imposed by the Court and to cooperate in the trial. Thus, it is
prayed that the benefit of anticipatory bail be extended to the applicant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the application and
prayed for its rejection.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, as well as
the fact that the material placed on record does not disclose the possibility of
the applicant fleeing from justice, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit
of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Accordingly, this Court, without commenting on the merits of the
case, is of the opinion that the applicant deserves to be extended the benefit
of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this application is allowed. It is directed
that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail
upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the Arresting Officer, subject to compliance of the following conditions
by the applicant:-
i) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8801
4 MCRC-9342-2026
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 or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer,
as the case may be;
vi) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the
trial;
v) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of
the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
