High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRC/6278/2018disposed off

Tirith Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2018-09-10Hon'Ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 6278 of 2018 Tirith Ram, S/o Santu Dahriya, Aged About 19 Years, R/o- Village- Limtara, Police Station- Simga, District - (Revenue And Civil) - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Police Station- Simga, District- (Revenue And Civil) - Balodabazar - Bhatapara , Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant :

Shri Sumit Jhawar, Advocate.

For Respondent/State :

Shri Vaibhav K. Goverdhan, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board 10/09/2018

1. The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime no. 210/2018, registered at Police Station- Simga, District- (Revenue And Civil) - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act.

2. As per the prosecution story, on the basis of information received from the informant on 09.07.2018, Police party raided and found that the present applicant along with the co-accused Dashrath Banjare were selling the country made liquor. Allegedly, present applicant was fled away from the spot. Total 12.78 bulk litres of country made liquor was seized from the possession of the co-accused Dashrath Banjare. On the basis of the said allegation offence has been registered and applicant has been arrested on 17.07.2018.

3. Shri Sumit Jhawar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely

implicated in the present case. He further submits that the seized liquor was only 12.78 bulk litres and there is no criminal antecedent of the present applicant. He further submits that the applicant is in custody since 17-07-2018 and trial will likely to take some more time, therefore, he may be released on bail.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State opposes the bail application.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence collected by the prosecution, further considering the fact that the applicant is in custody since 17.07.2018, charge-sheet has not been filed yet, therefore, trial will likely to take some time, without further commenting on merit of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

8. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed.

Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge yasmin