Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hrithik @ Chhanga Nishad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11600
1 MCRC-6548-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 10 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6548 of 2026
HRITHIK @ CHHANGA NISHAD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Nitesh Kumar Jain, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Satyapal Chadhar, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6283 of 2026
BHARAT LAL MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prateek Rusia, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Satyapal Chadhar, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Since these applications originate from the same crime number, they are being considered together and shall be disposed of by this common order.
2. These are first applications filed on behalf of the applicants under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail, who are apprehending their arrest in relation to FIR bearing Crime No.44/2026 registered at Police Station Madhavnagar, District Katni, for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of Excise Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 12.01.2026, 32 boxes containing 1600 quarter i.e. 288 bulk litre of country-made liquor was seized from the possession Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR SHUKLA Signing time: 11-02-2026 17:38:43 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11600 2 MCRC-6548-2026 of the applicants and co-accused which was being illegally transported by vehicle
- Ashok Leyland Loader bearing registration No.MP20-GB-3452.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant Hrithik alias Chhanga Nishad submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been fallaciously implicated in the crime. It is submitted that applicant Hrithik alias Chhanga Nishad was in possession of the vehicle which he took on rent from the applicant Bharat Lal Mishra who is owner of the vehicle. He places reliance on a decision in the case of Naresh Kumar Lahria v. State of M.P., 2003 Supreme (MP) 1017, wherein the Division Bench has dealt with constitutional validity of Section 59-A of Excise Act and held that the provisions are not violative to Article 21 of the Constitution and umbrella of protection under Section 438 CrPC can be granted, if the case is not covered by the provisions of Section 59-A of Excise Act.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant Bharat Lal Mishra, who is owner of the vehicle and not present on spot, submits that he is innocent and has been fallaciously roped in the crime. He relied upon an order passed in the case of Pramod Thakur v. The State of Madhya Pradesh in M.Cr.C. No.37263/2025 on 16.09.2025 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, wherein the accused has been granted temporary bail. He further places reliance upon an order passed in the case o f Rajabhai Thakur v. The State of Madhya Pradesh in M.Cr.C. No.27714/2025 on 08.07.2025, in which, accused has been granted anticipatory bail on considering the facts including that accused had no criminal antecedent. He further submits that the applicant Bharat Lal Mishra has no criminal antecedent.
6. On the above premise, learned counsel for both the applicants, pray that the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR SHUKLA Signing time: 11-02-2026 17:38:43NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11600 3 MCRC-6548-2026
7. In contrast, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the applicant Hrithik alias Chhanga has criminal past inasmuch as seven criminal cases have been registered against him which includes two cases pertaining to Excise Act, although he admits that applicant Bharat Lal Mishra has no criminal past. He further submits that investigation is still going-on and the custodial interrogation of the applicants will be required. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the applications.
8. Regarding the applicability of Section 59-A of the M.P. Excise Act, while anticipatory bail may be granted if no prima facie case is established, such a determination depends entirely on the specific facts of the case. In the case at hand, the record emerging from the case diary indicates the recovery of a substantial quantity of illicit liquor involving the applicants. Consequently, it cannot be held that a prima facie case is absent. It is well-settled that at this stage, evidence collected during the investigation is not subject to a detailed merits- based appreciation. Therefore, in light of the statutory bar under Section 59-A, the prayer for anticipatory bail cannot be sustained.
9. Applications are accordingly dismissed.
(RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY) JUDGE Sudesh Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR SHUKLA Signing time: 11-02-2026 17:38:43