Komal Kamar v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2770 of 2020 • Komal Kamar S/o Jhadiram Kamar, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Bamhani, P.S. Chura, District : Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Chura, District : Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant :
Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent/State :
Mr. K. K. Singh, G.A.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 01/06/2020 Heard on admission.
Admit.
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. 52/2020 registered at Police Station - Chura, District - Gariaband (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act and 188 of IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that, 11.00 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the custody of present applicant and 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 as the applicant is in custody since
04.04.2020 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 11.00 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 is in custody since 04.04.2020, trial is likely to take some more time and further taking into account the nature and gravity of offence and plea raised by the 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. 50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance as and when directed, the applicant will be released on bail, subject to following conditions:
That, the applicant will furnish a specific, undertaking that while on bail, he will not commit any excise offence, otherwise bail granted to him will be liable to be cancelled and shall co-operate the prosecution during trial.
That, the accused/applicant will make himself available for interrogation before the concerned Investigating OfÏcer as and when required and the accused/applicant will 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 will not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.
It is made clear that if the applicant has already been released on bail pursuant to the bail bond 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 bond afresh and the bail bond already furnished shall be deemed to be the bail bond furnished in compliance of the order of this Court, but if he has not furnished the bail bond earlier, then he will be required to furnish bail bond within four weeks from today.
Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge H.L. Sahu