Chintaram Nishad And ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 6986 of 2017

1. Chintaram Nishad, aged about 40 years, S/o- Baburam Nishad, R/o- Village Devrahat, P.S. Lalpur, District- Mungeli, C.G.

2. Rameshwar Nishad, aged about 45 years, S/o- Baburam Nishad, R/oVillage Devrahat, P.S. Lalpur, District- Mungeli, C.G. ---- Petitioners

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through Excise Inspector, Excise Circle Mungeli, District- Mungeli, C.G.

---- Respondent For Petitioner :

Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate.

For Respondents/State :

Mr. Ashish Surana, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 14/11/17 Heard.

(1) The accused/applicants have moved this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 127/2017 registered at Police Station Excise Circle Mungeli, District- Mungeli, for the offence punishable under Section 34(1)A, 34(2), 59(A) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915. (2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 10.8 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the present applicants. (3) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have

been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the as the applicants is in custody since 10.10.2017 and the trial is likely to take some time for its final disposal, he 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 10.8 bulk liters of illicit liquor has been seized from them which is more than prescribed limit of 5 bulk liters, but looking to the fact that the applicants are in custody since 10.10.2017, case is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 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/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance as and when directed, the applicants shall be released on bail, subject to following conditions:

• That, the applicants shall furnish a specific undertaking that while on bail, he will not commit any excise offence, otherwise bail granted to them shall be liable to be cancelled and shall co-operate with investigation / trial.

• 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. • That, the accused/applicants 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 Priyanka