Hira Jharia v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 6532 of 2020 • Hira Jharia S/o Shri Dev Lal Jharia Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Silhati, P.S. And TahsilSahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh).

---- Applicant

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh). ---- Respondent For Applicant :- Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate. For State/Respondent:- Mr. Sunil Otwani, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 09/10/2020

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. 6/2020, registered at Police Station - Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham (CG), for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, 504.000 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the present applicant and other co-accused (Sonu Dewangan).

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 submits that the main accused/coaccused (Sonu Dewangan) has already released on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 12.03.2020 in MCRC No.911/2020, therefore, on the parity present applicant is also released on bail. He further submits that the present applicant is in custody since 07/09/2020.

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 504.000 bulk liters of illicit liquor has been seized from the present applicant which is more than prescribed limit of 5 bulk liters, but looking to the fact that the illicit liquor was seized from the present applicant and other co-accused/main accused (Sonu Dewangan) who has already released on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 12.03.2020 in MCRC No.911/2020 and he is in custody since 07/09/2020 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 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.

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

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:

(i) 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.

(ii) 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.

(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), 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.

10. Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit