Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Spurious Liquor Death Case; Holds Gravity of Offence and Multiple Deaths Outweigh Bail Considerations
Case Name: Beeru Shaini alias Veeru Saini alias Veeru Baba v. State of Punjab and Another
Date of Decision: 23 January 2026
Citation: CRA-S No.2502 of 2025 with CRM-31948-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and declined to grant regular bail to the appellant, holding that where allegations disclose active involvement in supply of spurious liquor resulting in multiple deaths, the gravity of the offence, potential sentence, and societal impact override individual liberty considerations. The Court further held that Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act is attracted where an IPC offence punishable with ten years or more is committed against a Scheduled Caste victim, irrespective of motive.
Summary: The appellant challenged the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby his application for regular bail was dismissed in a case arising out of FIR No.44 dated 22.03.2024 registered at Police Station City Sunam, District Sangrur. The FIR was lodged under Sections 302, 328, 465, 468, 469, 471, 201 and 120-B IPC, Sections 61 and 61-A of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
As per the prosecution case, the complainant alleged that illicit liquor was being sold in the village by co-accused persons. On 21.03.2024, the complainant’s father Budh Singh and other villagers consumed spurious liquor purchased from the accused network. The victims suffered severe abdominal pain and loss of eyesight and subsequently died. Post-mortem and viscera reports confirmed death due to methyl alcohol poisoning, sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Multiple villagers reportedly lost their lives, while several others fell seriously ill.
The appellant was arrested on 02.04.2024 after being nominated on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused, revealing that he had purchased 46 bottles of spurious liquor from another accused and sold them onward, including to the persons who supplied liquor to the victims. The offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was added since one of the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
The appellant contended that he was not named in the FIR, was implicated only on disclosure statements, no recovery was effected from him, and that co-accused had been granted bail. It was also argued that there was delay in lodging the FIR and that continued custody was unwarranted.
The State opposed the appeal, submitting that the appellant played a significant role in the supply chain of poisonous liquor, that multiple deaths had occurred, that trial was progressing expeditiously with several witnesses already examined, and that the appellant had criminal antecedents. It was further contended that release on bail could lead to repetition of similar offences.
After considering the rival submissions, the High Court held that the nature and gravity of allegations, involvement in supply of spurious liquor, and loss of innocent lives weighed heavily against the appellant. The Court rejected the argument regarding non-applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, holding that once an IPC offence punishable with ten years or more is committed against a Scheduled Caste victim, the statutory provision is clearly attracted.
Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the order refusing regular bail, holding that no ground was made out for grant of bail in view of the seriousness of allegations and ongoing trial. The Court clarified that observations were confined to bail adjudication and would not affect the merits of the case.