Punjab & Haryana High Court Declines Regular Bail to Accused Alleged to Have Supplied Extra Neutral Alcohol in Spurious Liquor Death Case
Case Name: Anshul Garg v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 06 March 2026
Citation: CRM-M-51942-2025
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that in cases involving deaths caused by spurious liquor, where the accused is alleged to have supplied raw material forming a crucial link in the illicit liquor supply chain and has criminal antecedents, grant of regular bail is not justified despite prolonged custody or slow progress of trial. The Court observed that seriousness of the offence, prima facie material indicating conspiracy, and the accused’s criminal history weigh heavily against the grant of bail.
Summary: The petitioner filed a second petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in FIR No. 387 dated 10.11.2023 registered at Police Station Chhapar, District Yamunanagar. The case involved offences under Sections 302, 307, 328, 120-B and 201 IPC along with Section 72-A of the Punjab Excise Act relating to the alleged manufacture and distribution of spurious liquor resulting in deaths.
According to the prosecution, information was received that a labourer named Jagmal died after consuming illicit country-made liquor. On the complaint of the deceased’s son, it was alleged that the victim had consumed liquor purchased from certain individuals and that the liquor was poisonous. Subsequently, during investigation, more persons were reported to have died after allegedly consuming the same spurious liquor.
During investigation, several accused persons were arrested and disclosure statements were recorded which allegedly revealed a wider network engaged in the manufacture and distribution of illicit liquor. Based on these statements, the prosecution claimed that Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA), used as a primary ingredient for preparing spurious liquor, had been supplied by the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner was later arrested on production warrants and was arrayed as an accused in the supplementary challan.
The petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated as his name did not appear in the original FIR and he was nominated only on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused, which are inadmissible unless corroborated. It was further contended that no recovery was effected from him and no documentary evidence linked him with the alleged illicit liquor network. The petitioner also claimed that he operated a licensed Ayurvedic manufacturing unit and had been authorized to procure Extra Neutral Alcohol during the COVID-19 period for manufacturing sanitizers.
Additionally, the petitioner contended that he had been in custody since March 2024, the investigation had concluded, the challan had been filed, and out of 105 prosecution witnesses none had yet been examined, indicating that the trial would take considerable time. He also relied upon parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail.
The State opposed the bail petition and argued that the allegations were grave as the case involved deaths caused by spurious liquor. It was submitted that investigation had uncovered a larger conspiracy involving multiple persons engaged in manufacturing and distributing illicit liquor and that the petitioner’s role was significant as the alleged supplier of Extra Neutral Alcohol used in its preparation.
The Court observed that although the petitioner was not named in the original FIR, his involvement surfaced during investigation through disclosure statements and other material. The Court noted that charges had already been framed against him under Sections 302, 328 and 120-B IPC along with the provisions of the Punjab Excise Act. The Court also took note of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and observed that his past involvement in multiple cases could not be ignored while considering the plea for bail.
Referring to principles governing bail laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court reiterated that while liberty of an individual is a fundamental value, courts must balance it against the seriousness of the offence, likelihood of tampering with evidence, and the larger interests of society. The Court also noted that successive bail petitions are maintainable but require a substantial change in circumstances since the earlier rejection.
Upon examining the material on record, the Court held that the allegations against the petitioner were grave and the prosecution case indicated his role as part of the supply chain that facilitated the manufacture of spurious liquor responsible for multiple deaths. The Court concluded that no substantial change in circumstances had been shown since the earlier rejection of bail.
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the second petition for regular bail filed by the petitioner, holding that the seriousness of the allegations, prima facie evidence of involvement in the illicit liquor supply chain, and criminal antecedents outweighed the grounds raised for bail.