Madhya Pradesh High Court
Magan @ Madan @ Barik vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 April, 2019
1 MCRC-11881-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-11881-2019
(MAGAN @ MADAN @ BARIK Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Indore, Dated : 03-04-2019
Shri Nilesh Dave, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
With the consent of parties, heard finally and disposed of. Petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking indulgence in the order dated 02/03/2019 passed in Cr.
Revision No.12/2019 by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone, District Khargone exercising revisional jurisdiction confirming the order dated 10/12/2018 passed in Cr. Case No.2251/2018 by the trial Court while rejecting the application moved under section 437(6) Cr.P.C., for grant of bail.
As per prosecution case, the applicant was found to be in illegal possession of 56 bulk liters of country made liquor. Accordingly, case has been registered at crime No.107/2018 by Police Station Barwah, District Khargone for the offence punishable under section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act. The applicant is in jail since 11/06/2018.
Investigation is complete and challan has been filed. The applicant has filed an application seeking release on bail by force of the provision under section 437(6) Cr.P.C., inter alia contending that since the first date fixed for evidence on 05/10/2018, no evidence has been led within 60 days expiring on 10/12/2018, muchless; conclusion of the trial.
The trial Court has rejected the application exercising the powers thereunder with the justification that possession of 56 bulk liters of country made liquor since is a heinous crime and, therefore, the applicant does not deserve enlargement on bail.
The aforesaid order has been confirmed by the revisional Court. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Courts below have not appreciated the fact that the evidence has not been concluded within sixty Digitally signed by M V R BALAJI SARMA Date: 04/04/2019 11:31:11 2 MCRC-11881-2019 days from the date of fixation of the case for evidence. Further, the Courts below have also not considered the fact that the applicant is in custody for over ten months whereas the minimum jail sentence is one year though can be stretched over a period of three years depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. In any case, the alleged offence could not have been construed to be of such nature that the applicant could not be enlarged on bail pending conclusion of the trial in the obtaining facts and circumstances of the case.
Per contra, learned State's counsel while supporting the orders impugned contends that the Courts below have exercised the jurisdiction under section 437(6) Cr.P.C., and reasons have been recorded justifying rejection of the application. Hence, no interference is warranted for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction by this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C., Even otherwise, interference with the reasons given in the orders impugned are not open for judicial intervention for want of abuse of such discretionary jurisdiction or illegality in the same.
Heard.
This Court has carefully perused the provision contained under section 437(6) Cr.P.C., The aforesaid provision is engrafted in the Criminal Procedure underlying the principle of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the basic principle for exercise of the jurisdiction by the Court governing applications for grant of bail. It is to ensure that the person in custody should not suffer incarceration pending trial if the evidence is not concluded within sixty days from the first date fixed for evidence for trial of non-bailable offence, unless; of course, the Court below has recorded germane reasons for rejection of the application.
In the instant case, the applicant is found to be in possession of 56 bulk liters of country made liquor. The minimum permissible quantity prescribed is 50 bulk liters. As such, possession of 06 bulk liters of country made liquor in excess to the prescribed quantity could not have been Digitally signed by M V R BALAJI SARMA Date: 04/04/2019 11:31:11 3 MCRC-11881-2019 construed to provide reasons for continuing the applicant in jail irrespective of the fact that the evidence has not been concluded within sixty days from the first date fixed for evidence. As such, this Court is of the view that the Courts below have not correctly exercised the discretionary jurisdiction under section 437(6) Cr.P.C., denying bail to the applicant without taking into consideration the sanctity attached to the concept of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It needs no mention that bail is a right and denial thereof is an exception thereto in criminal jurisprudence.
Accordingly, this application is hereby allowed and the applicant is held entitled for enlargement on bail.
It is directed that the applicant be released on bail in crime case No.107/18 registered at Police Station Barwah, District Khargone for the offence punishable under section 34(2) Cr.P.C., on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, on the condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C., A copy of the order be sent to the Court concerned for necessary compliance.
(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE b/-
Digitally signed by M V R BALAJI SARMA Date: 04/04/2019 11:31:11