Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Pathak (Agnihotri) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 October, 2017
M.Cr.C. No.12655/2017
30.10.2017
Shri Manish Dutt, Senior Counsel with Shri Anoop Saxena
for the petitioner.
Shri B. P. Pandey, government advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Sandeep Pathak (Agnihotri) in Crime No.47/2017 registered by Police Station Alipura, District Chhatarpur under Section 34 (2) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
As per the prosecution case, on an information received from an informant, the police force of police station Alipur, District Chhatarpur chased a Maruti Omni Van at about 4:00 a.m. on 10.6.2017. Ultimately, taking advantage of the darkness, the driver of Maruti Omni Van succeeded in hiding the vehicle in the bushes alongside a rivulet and managed to escape from the spot along with another occupant of the vehicle. Subsequently, 520 liters of factory made Indian liquor valueded Rs. 1,72,800/- was seized from the vehicle. Witnesses Amar Singh and Ravinder Singh saw that the occupant other than the driver of the vehicle was petitioner Sandeep Pathak.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to the first information report lodged by the police, wherein the factum that witnesses had told police that Sandeep Pathak was other occupant of the car and had managed to escape, does not figure prominently. It has been submitted that almost by way of afterthought, it has been added that the villagers told the police that the abandoned vehicle was owned by petitioner Sandeep Pathak, whereas Sandeep Pathak is not the owner of the car. Thus, it appears that the first information report is anti-timed and anti-dated. The police is trying to falsely implicate the petitioner by developing a story on the basis of false witnesses against petitioner. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 10.7.2017, therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.
Learned government advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has invited attention of the Court to fine print of the first information report, wherein it has been recorded that the villagers had gathered on the spot. The owner and the driver of the vehicle had managed to escape. The villagers told that the vehicle belonged to petitioner Sandeep Pathak. At any rate two witnesses namely Amar Singh and Ravinder Singh have categorically stated that they saw the petitioner escape from the spot. A huge quantity (520 bulk liters) was seized from the vehicle. The petitioner is a habitual offender and has as many as 9 cases registered against him, out of those offences at least six are under the provisions of Excise Act; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts as pointed out by the learned government advocate for the respondent/State, in the opinion of this Court, this is not a fit case for grant of bail particularly in view of the embargo engrafted in Section 59-A of the Excise Act.
Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C filed on behalf of petitioner Sandeep Pathak (Agnihotri), is dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(C.V. SIRPURKAR ) JUDGE ahd MOHD AHMAD 2017.10.31 04:45:43 -07'00'