Dilip Chandra v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C.No.4651 of 2020 • Dilip Chandra S/o Ramdhar @ Nawa Gotia Aged About 35 Years R/o Kamla Nagar, Thana And Tehsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Thana Incharge Sarangarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

---Non-applicant For Applicant : Shri Vivek Mishra, Advocate For Non-applicant : Shri Ayaz Naved, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 21.9.2020.

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.401 of 2020, registered at Police Station - Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG), for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) & 59A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915. 3.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, 200.00 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the present applicant.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in crime in question. He further submits that there is no compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 57 & 57A of the CG Excise Act, 1915 in the present case and the same can be verified from the charge sheet which has been filed before the trial trial Court as well as before this Court in support of the bail application. To support his argument he placed reliance in the matter of Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2006(3) CGLJ 259. The applicant is custody since 23.6.2020.

5.

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

6.

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

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 the matter of Banti Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh1, if the facts of present case are examined, it is apparent that 200 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 from 23.6.2020 and case is trible by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and trial is likely to take some more time and 1 2015(2) C.G.L.J. 341

further taking into account the nature and gravity of offence and plea raised by the applicant that mandatory provisions of Sections 57 & 57A of the CG Excise Act has not been complied with in the present 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 bond in the sum of ₹ 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 co-operate 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. 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 Bini