Rahul Chouhan @ Johit Chouhan v. State Of Chhattisgarh
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2754 of 2020 • Rahul Chouhan @ Johit Chouhan S/o Pyarilal Chouhan Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Sirshoma, Thana Singhoda, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :
Shri Vikash Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent/State :
Shri K.K. Singh, G.A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Smt.Justice Rajani Dubey Order On Board 29.5.2020 1.
The default pointed out by the Registry is overruled. 2.
Heard.
3.
Admit.
4.
This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.27/2020, registered at Police Station Singhoda, District Mahasamund (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.
5.
It is the case of the prosecution that 45 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the custody of applicant and thereby committed the offence.
6.
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 8.5.2020 and the trial is likely to take some time for its final disposal, he may be released on bail. 7.
On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application. He submits that unauthorized quantity of illicit liquor has been seized from the possession of the applicant. 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 45 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 8.5.2020, 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 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.
9.
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 shall be released on bail, subject to following conditions:
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 OfÏcer 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 ofÏcer. 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 23.3.2020 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 within four weeks from today.
11.
Certified copy, as per rules.
Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge sunita