Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dipesh Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2017
MCRC-5469-2017
(DIPESH TIWARI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
08-05-2017
Shri Sourabh Kumar Sharmaha, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri K.S. Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.8970/2017 filed on behalf of the petitioner for taking additional documents on record. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the additional documents are taken on record. Heard on this second application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Dipesh Tiwari in Crime No.36/2017 registered by Police Station Gorakhpur, District Jabalpur Section 34 (1), 49 (A) of M.P. Excise Act.
The first application for same relief was dismissed by this Court by order dated 8.2.2017 passed in M.Cr.C.No.1726/2017, as withdrawn.
As per the prosecution case, on an information received from informant, petitioner Dipesh Tiwari was arrested with about two liters of country made liquor, which was unfit for human consumption.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The same seizure witnesses were used by P.S. Gorakhpur in earlier Crime No.214/2016 registered against the petitioner and they had turned hostile. It has also been submitted that the charge sheet in the case has been filed and the petitioner has been in custody since 16.1.2017; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.
Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application mainly on the ground that the petitioner was found in possession of illicit liquor; therefore, in view of the provisions Section 59-A of the Excise Act, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. Moreover, the petitioner has as many as 26 criminal cases registered against him. Out of those 26 offences at least three offences apart from present one, are registered under Section 34 (2) of the Excise Act. In these circumstances, it has been prayed that the application for bail be dismissed. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts that:
1. false implication cannot be inferred simply on the basis of the fact that same set of seizure witnesses were used in a previous offence as well;
2. this is a case of seizure of spurious liquor which was unfit for human consumption;
3. as per the F.S.L. Report, the liquor was found to contain 9.66% ethyl alcohol and was unfit for human consumption;
4. the petitioner is a habitual offender and has as many as 26 criminal cases;
-in the opinion of this Court, petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.
Consequently, this second application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C is also dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE ahd