Deepak Shahni v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 1438 of 2020 • Deepak Shahni, S/o Shri Umesh Shahni, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Paradise Colony Borsibhatha Durg District- Durg Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through- SHO Police Station- Durg District- Durg Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent For Applicant :
Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate.
For Respondent :
Mr. Anurag Verma, P.L.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board /03/2020 The accused/applicant has moved this first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 1220/2019 registered at Police Station -Durg Kotwali, District - Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34 (2), 49 (d) and 36 of the C.G. Excise Act. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 11.12.2019, total 60 bulk liters of illicit liquor and other equipments used for preparation of liquor have been seized by the police from the custody of applicant and other co-accused persons thereby committed the offence.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the other co-accused persons have been
granted bail in MCRC Nos. 8425/2019 and 347/2020 as the applicant is in custody since 11.12.2019 and the trial is likely to take some time for its final disposal, he may be released on bail.
On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application.
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 only 60 bulk liters of illicit liquor has been seized from him which is more than prescribed limit of 5 bulk liters, but looking to the fact that the other co-accused persons have been granted bail in MCRC Nos. 8425/2019 and 347/2020 as the applicant is in custody since 11.12.
2019, trial is likely to take some more time and further taking into account the nature and gravity of offence and plea raised by the applicant that he has falsely been implicated in case, I am of the opinion that present is the fit case, in which, the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.
That, the applicant shall furnish a specific, undertaking
that while on bail, he shall not commit any excise offence, otherwise bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled and shall co-operate the prosecution during trial.
That, the accused/applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the concerned Investigating OfÏcer as and when required and the accused/applicant 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 ofÏcer.
That, the accused/applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.
Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Ruchi