Shashi Bai Pendro v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 4447 of 2020 • Shashi Bai Pendro W/o Suraj Singh Pendro Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Belha, P. S.
Pachpedi, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh through Pachpedi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (wrongly mentioned as Excise Circle Masturi).
---- Respondent For Applicant :- Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate.
For State/Respondent:- Mr. Rahul Jha, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 10/08/2020
1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken up through video conferencing.
2. This is an 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.
10/2020,
registered at Police Station-Pachpedi, District Bilaspur (CG) (wrongly mentioned as Excise Circle Masturi), for the offences punishable under Sections 34(2), 34, 34(1)क(च), and 59(क) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, 22.000 bulk liters of illicit liquor and 600 kg Mahua lahan were seized by the police from the present applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and she has falsely been implicated in crime in question. She is in custody since 02/07/2020.
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 C.G.
Excise Act, 1915, and bearing in mind the
principles of law laid down in Banti Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh1, if the facts of present case are examined, it is apparent that there is no criminal antecedent of the present applicant and only 22.000 bulk liters of illicit liquor and 600 kg Mahua lahan have been seized from her which is more than prescribed limit of 5 bulk liters, but looking to the fact that it is the first offence of the applicant and she is in custody since 02/07/2020 and case is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and 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 she 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.
8. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
It is directed that on furnishing a personal 2015(2) C.G.L.J. 341
bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for her appearance as and when directed, the applicant shall be released on bail, subject to following conditions:
(i) That, the applicant shall furnish a specific undertaking that while on bail, she will not commit any excise offence, otherwise bail granted to her shall be liable to be cancelled and shall co-operate the prosecution during trial.
(ii) That, the accused/applicant shall make herself 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.
(iii) 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 23/03/2020 in the matter of In Re : Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in Prisons (Suo Moto Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020), she 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 she has not furnished the bail bonds earlier, then she will be required to furnish bail bonds.
10. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit