Dulamani Chauhan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2577 of 2020

1. Dulamani Chauhan S/o Kirtan Chauhan Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Mahrajpur Sariya, Tah And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

2. Pramod Chauhan S/o Kishan Chauhan Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Surajgarh Sariya, Tah And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicants

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Thana In-Charge, PS Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Applicants :

Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Mr. Devesh Verma, G.A.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 13/05/2020 Heard on admission.

Admit.

The accused/applicants have moved this first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 214/2020 registered at Police Station-Sarangarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) and 59(A) of the C.G. Excise Act. It is the case of the prosecution that, 25.00 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the custody of applicants, and thereby committed the offence. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the

applicants have been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that as the applicants are in custody since 22.04.2020 and the trial is likely to take some time for its final disposal, they 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 25.00 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized from them which is more than prescribed limit of 5 bulk liters, but looking to the fact that the applicants are in custody since 22.04.2020, 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.

Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each, with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned 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 shall 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 OfÏcer 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏcer.

That, the accused/applicants shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge H.L. Sahu