Resham Lal Jangade And ORS. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6914 of 2020

1. Resham Lal Jangde, S/o Sukal Das, Aged about 30 years.

2. Jaysingh Dhruw, S/o Dwarika Dhruw, Aged about 25 years.

3. Samaru Sen, S/o Kaneshwar Sen, Aged about 28 years.

All R/o Village Sonasilli, P.S. Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

---Applicants

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Station House Officer, Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

--- Non-applicant/State For Applicant :- Mr. Vikash Pradhan, Advocate For State :- Dr. Veena Nair, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 28/10/2020

1. This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicants, who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 229/2020, registered at Police Station-Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for

the offence punishable under Section 186 of IPC and Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, 30 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the present applicants.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the present applicants have not committed any offence and they have falsely been implicated in crime in question. They are in custody since 17/09/2020.

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

5. I have heard learned 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 Chhattisgarh1, if the facts of present case are examined, it is apparent that only 30 bulk liters of illicit liquor has been seized from the applicants which is more than the prescribed limit of 5 bulk litres but looking to the fact that it is the first offence of the applicants and they are in custody since 17/09/2020 and case is triable by the 1 2015(2) C.G.L.J. 341

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 applicants that they have falsely been implicated in case, I am of the opinion that present is the fit case, in which, the applicants 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.25,000/- each with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for their appearance as and when directed, the applicants shall be released on bail, subject to following conditions:

(i) That, the applicants shall furnish a specific undertaking that while on bail, they will not commit any excise offence, otherwise bail granted to them shall be liable to be cancelled and shall co-operate the prosecution during trial.

(ii) That, the accused/applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation before the concerned Investigating Officer as and when required and the accused/applicants 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/applicants shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.

8. It is made clear that if the applicants have 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), they 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 they have not furnished the bail bonds earlier, then they will be required to furnish the bail bonds.

9. Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet