Raju Thakur v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Misc. Criminal Case No.3908 of 2020 Raju Thakur, S/o Jagannath Thakur, aged about 29 years, R/o Ward No.17, Mongrapali, Police Station Jonk, Tehsil & District Nuapada (Orissa) (In Jail) ---- Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant:

Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate.

For Non-applicant:

Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 29/06/2020

1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video conferencing.

2. The accused/applicant has moved this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No.102/2020, registered at Police Station Komakhan, Distt. Mahasamund, for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 11.700 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the present applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of regular bail, the applicant has not committed any offence, he has falsely been implicated in the case, the applicant has been arrested on 10-6-2020 and therefore, he may be released on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

7. Taking into consideration the condition incorporated in Section 59-A(ii) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, and bearing in mind the principles of law laid down in the matter of Banti Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh1, if the facts of the present case are examined, it is apparent that only 11.700 bulk liters of illicit liquor has been seized from the applicant which is more than the prescribed limit of 5 bulk liters, but looking to the fact that it is the first offence of the applicant and he has been arrested on 10-6-2020, the 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 the plea raised by the applicant that he has falsely been implicated in the case, I am of the opinion that present is a fit case in which the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail.

8. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the CrPC is allowed. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- 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:

1. 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.

2. 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 2015(2) C.G.L.J. 341

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.

3. That, the accused/applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.

9. 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 Motu 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 bail bonds earlier, then he will be required to furnish bail bonds.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma