Purushottam v. State Of Chhattisgarh,

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2311 of 2021

1. Purushottam, S/o Kalyan Das Gayakwad, Aged About 29 Years, R/o. Village Paraswani, Police Station Supela (Wrongly written as Palari in the ordersheet), Balodabazar, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

2. Satish Tandon, S/o Anjor Das Tandon, Aged About 30 Years, R/o. Village Paraswani, Police Station Palari (wrongly written as Suhela in the ordersheet), Balodabazar, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicants

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station Palari, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

---- Non-Applicant/State For Applicants : Mr. Jitendra Shukla, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Dr. (Ms.) Veena Nair, Dy.A.G. Hon'ble Justice Shri Gautam Chourdiya Order on Board 25.03.2021

1) Heard on admission.

2) The application is admitted for hearing.

3) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

4) The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as they are in jail since 15.03.2021 in connection with Crime No. 34/2021 registered at Police Station- Palari, District- BalodabazarBhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34 (2) of C.G. Excise Act.

5) Allegation against the applicants is that they were found in illegal

possession of 32.400 bulk Ltrs country made Liquor.

6) Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the crime in question, they have not committed any offence. Learned counsel for the applicants further submit that the applicants first offenders, they have no criminal antecedent, there is no likelihood of the applicants tampering with the prosecution evidence or absconding and as the applicants have been arrested on 15.03.2021 and trial is likely to take some time for its final disposal. Therefore, the applicants be released on bail by this Court.

7) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the bail application, however, she submits that the applicants have no criminal antecedent.

8) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the liquor was seized from the applicants, considering the quantity of illicit liquor, the detention period of the applicants who are 29 and 30 years old, the fact that the applicants have no criminal antecedents, there is no likelihood of the applicant tampering with the prosecution evidence or absconding as admitted by both the counsels and conclusion of trial may take some time, the application is allowed.

9) It is directed that in the event each of the applicants executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a)they 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 from disclosing such fact to the Court.

(b)they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and

(c) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

(d) they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future or else this order granting bail to the applicants shall automatically stand cancelled without further reference to the Bench.

Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned police station forthwith who shall inform the trial Court in the event of applicants involving themselves in similar offence in future. Sd/- (Gautam Chourdiya) Judge Nadim