Puneetram Gond And ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No.
of 201
1. Puneetram Gond, S/o Jhhaduram Gond, Aged about 45 years, R/o Village Beltikari, P.S. Lalbag, Civil & Reve. Distt. Rajnandgaon, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
2. Arjun Singh Patel, S/o Khorbahara Ram Patel, Aged about 34 years, R/o Vill. Beltikari, P.S. Lalbag, Civil & Revenue Distt. Rajnandgaon, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---- Applicants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through : P.S. Arjunda, Civil & Rev. Distt. Balod (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicants:
Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate.
For Respondent/State:
Mr. Aditya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 0 3 /0 5 /201 Heard.
(1) The accused/applicants have moved this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 108/2016 registered at Police Station Arjunda, Civil & Rev. Distt. Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.
(2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 9 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the present 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 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 only 9 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 29.03.
2016, case is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 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 on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.
• 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. Certified copy, as per rules.
Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge D/-