Rambishal v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No.
of 201 Rambishal, S/o. Sadhuram Satnami, aged about 50 years, R/o. Village Sakin- Khorsinala, Pangaon, Police Station City Kotwali, Civil & Revenue District Balodabazar (C.G.) ---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : City Kotwali, District Balodabazar (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant:
Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State:Mr. Adhiraj Surana, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board /0 4 /201 Heard.
(1) The accused/applicant has moved this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 85/2016 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Balodabazar for the offences punishable under Section 34 of the Chhatisgarh Excise Act.
(2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 7.2 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the present applicant. (3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in three Criminal Cases registered against the applicant relating to Excise offence, he has been acquitted by the jurisdictional criminal court and, thus, it is a first offence registered against the applicant. He
further submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case, and therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. (4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.
(5) I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.
(6) 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 7.2 bulk liters of liquor has been seized from him which is more than prescribed limit of 5 bulk liters, but looking to the fact that it is first offence of the applicant and he is in custody from 27.02.
2016 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 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. (7) 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 Rs.
• 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. Certified copy, as per rules.
Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge D/-