Rajkumar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Page No.1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.CR.C. No. 6088 of 2016 Rajkumar Sahu, S/o. Jaleshwar Sahu, aged about 31 years, Occupation- Tea Stall, R/o. Village- Rabeli, Police Station - Pipariya, Tahsil - Kawardha, Civil and Revenue District - Kabirdham (C.G.) ---- Applicant
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : District Magistrate/Station House Officer, Police Station -Pipariya, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant :
Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent :
Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 05/10/2016 1.
This is the second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 154/2016, registered at Police Station- Pipariya, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act. The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive the same after examination of the seizure witness vide order dated 30.08.2016.
2.
The prosecution alleges that the applicant was found to be in possession of illicit liquor measuring about 18.540 bulk liters of country made liquor and 7.800 bulk liters of beer and he was arrested on 11.07.2016.
3.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to repeat the same after
Page No.2 examination of the seizure witness. It is further submitted that seizure witness namely Tulsi Sahu and Meghuram have been examined and they have not supported the case of the prosecution, therefore, the counsel prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail, however, she do not dispute the fact that seizure witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. 5.
Considering the fact that seizure witnesses in this case have been examined and they have not supported the case of the prosecution, this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case, in which, the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail. 6.
Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
7.
It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for his appearance as and when directed.
8.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Balram