Sunil Yadav And ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C. No. 756 of 2016 1.
Sunil Yadav son of Jhadu Ram Yadav aged about 35 years R/o Naya Amapara Ward No.13 Durg District Durg C.G.
2.
Vijay Uike son of Ram Narayan Singh aged about 36 years R/o Arya Nagar Ward No.11 Durg District Durg C.G.
---Applicants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through the Excise Circle Durg Town (West) District Durg C.G.
---Non-applicant For Applicants :
Mohd. Tariq Haider, Advocate For Non-applicant :
Mr. Aditya Sharma, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 29/02/2016 1.
This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicants, who have been arrested in connection with crime No.304/2015, registered at Police Station Excise Circle
Durg Town (West), District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.
2.
Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 18 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the applicants.
3.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have falsely been implicated in the case, and therefore, they may be released on bail.
4.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application. 5.
I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.
6.
Taking into consideration the condition incorporated in Section 59-A(ii) of the C.G. Excise Act, 1915, and bearing in mind the principles of law laid down in Banti Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (M.Cr.C. No.6846 of 2014, decided on 05.01.2015), if the facts of present case are examined, it is apparent that there is no
criminal antecedent of the present applicants and only 18 bulk liters of illicit liquor has been seized from them which is more than prescribed limit of 5 bulk liters, but looking to the fact that it is first offence of the applicants and they are in custody from 15/12/2015 and case is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and trial is likely to take some more time and further taking into account the nature and gravity of offence and plea raised by the applicants that they have falsely been implicated in case, I am of the opinion that present is the fit case, in which, the applicants should be enlarged on regular bail.
7.
Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is directed that each of the applicants i.e. Sunil Yadav and Vijay Uike, furnishes a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for their appearance as and when directed, the applicants shall be released on bail, subject to following conditions:- • That, the applicants shall furnish a specific
undertaking that while on bail, they will not commit any excise offence, otherwise bail granted to them shall be liable to be cancelled and shall co-operate the prosecution during trial.
• That, the accused/applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation before the concerned Investigating Officer as and when required and the accused/applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
• That, the accused/applicants shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.
8.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Tiwari