Santosh Kumar Pal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C. No. 2633 of 2020 Santosh Kumar Pal, son of Shrilal, aged about 23 years, resident of Village Mau, Thana - Chitrakut, District - Chitrakut (U.P.) ---- Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House Officer, Police Station - Basna, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ----Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vikash Pradhan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State: Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 01/07/2020 (1) Proceedings of this matter have been taken up through video conferencing.

(2) Counsel for the applicant undertakes to file certified copy of the order dated 12.3.2020 within a week, if already not filed.

(3) The accused/applicant has preferred this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 83/2020 registered at Police Station - Basna, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B of

IPC and Sections 34(2) & 59(A) of Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

(4) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present applicant and other co-accused persons were found in possession of 81.00 bulk liters of illicit liquor unauthorizedly and without authority of law and thereby committed the aforesaid offence.

(5) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question as he has not committed any offence. He further submits that the applicant has been arrested on 26.02.2020 and the co-accused persons namely Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Awadhesh Ram have already been granted regular bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.03.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 1749 of 2020 and, therefore, the present applicant may also be entitled for bail on the ground of parity. (6) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.

(7) I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.

(8) 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 81 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 applicant has been arrested on 26.02.2020, 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 applicant that he is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity as the coaccused persons namely Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Awadhesh Ram have already been granted regular bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.03.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.

1749 of 2020, I am of the opinion that present is the fit case, in which, the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail. (9) 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 applicant shall furnish a specific undertaking that while on bail, he will not commit

any excise offence, otherwise bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled and shall cooperate the prosecution during trial. • That, the accused/applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the concerned Investigating Officer 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 officer. • That, the accused/applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.

(10) It is made clear that if the applicant has already been released on bail pursuant to the bail bonds already furnished in view of the order passed by the High Power Committee constituted in compliance of the order of the Supreme Court of India dated 23.03.2020 in the matter of In Re : Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in Prisons (Suo Moto Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020), he need not furnish bail bonds afresh and the bail bonds already furnished shall be deemed to be the bail bonds furnished in compliance of the order of this Court, but if he has not furnished the bail bonds earlier, then he will be required to furnish bail bonds.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit/D.