Himachal Pradesh High Court
Neeraj Thakur vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 23 May, 2022
Author: Satyen Vaidya
Bench: Satyen Vaidya
1
REPORTABLE/NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 23 rd DAY OF MAY, 2022
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA, JUDGE
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION(MAIN) No. 1045 of 2022
BETWEEN:
NEERAJ THAKUR, S/O LATE SH. KUSHAL SINGH,
R/O VPO BOHNI, TEHSIL AND DISTT. HAMIRPUR,
H.P. AGED 46 YEARS.
........PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIKRAM THAKUR, ADVOCATE )
AND
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH.
.........RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI P.K. BHATTI & SHRI BHARAT BHUSHAN
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS WITH SHRI
KUNAL THAKUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
RESERVED ON: 20.05.2022
DECIDED ON : 23.05.2022
____________________________________________________________________________
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
passed the following :-
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2022 20:05:38 :::CIS
2
ORDER
The case as setup by respondent is that on 23.01.2022, the police officials of Police Station Bhoranj, received a secret .
information that Harish Kumar @ Rishu working as salesman at liquor vend Bassi, had concealed boxes of country liquor "Santra VRV FOOLS" under culvert near village Plassi, which could be of spurious nature. "Rukka" was sent to the police station for registration of FIR and the police party immediately left for spot. On identification of petitioner Harish Kumar @ Rishu, 22 boxes of country liquor "Santra"
brand with "VRV FOOLS" printed on each bottle were recovered and seized from underneath a culvert.During investigation, petitioner Harish Kumar @ Rishu disclosed that he was working as a salesman in the liquor vend at Bassi, which belonged to Neeraj Thakur and said Neeraj Thakur was brother-in-law of the person, accused in a case registered at Police Station Sundernagar, in respect of deaths of persons due to consumption of spurious liquor. According to petitioner Harish Kumar @ Rishu, on 18.01.2022, at about 9:30 am, Ashish Soni, who was working as salesman as also the driver for Neeraj Thakur had unloaded 20 boxes of liquor "Santra VRV FOOLS" at his liquor vend without valid pass. He further disclosed that on 19.01.2022, Contractor Neeraj Thakur had informed him telephonically that since some persons had ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2022 20:05:38 :::CIS 3 died at Sundernagar after consuming liquor "Santra VRV FOOLS", so the liquor of said brand should be concealed. He, accordingly loaded 12 unsold boxes of liquor "Santra VRV FOOLS" in his vehicle and visited .
Kartar Singh @ Karan who was working as salesman at liquor vend "Chahab", loaded 10 more boxes of the same brand of liquor and thereafter both of them concealed the boxes at the place from where it was recovered by the police.
2. The investigation is stated to be complete and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed in the Court against besides other co-accused Harish Kumar @ Rishu, Kartar Singh @ r petitioner Karan, Sunil Sharma, Ashish Soni, Kuldeep, Rajiv Kumar and Gaurav Minhas, under Sections 39(1)(a), 39(2), 40, 44 of Himachal Pradesh Excise Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegations against the accused persons arrayed in above noted case are that they criminally conspired with each other to sell spurious liquor and in such process committed offences of fraud and forgery etc.
4. Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in above noted case for the second time. His earlier bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2022 20:05:38 :::CIS 4 16.03.2022, as the investigation was still continuing. Petitioner Neeraj Thakur had filed bail application bearing Cr.MP(M) No. 509 of 2022.
The samples of liquor had been sent for chemical examination. Keeping .
in view the entirety of the circumstances as prevailed at the stage of consideration of earlier application of the petitioner, such application was rejected at that stage.
5. Petitioner has contended that the investigation qua him is already complete and no incriminating material has been collected to show that petitioner was the manufacturer of the liquor recovered by the police. Petitioner was licensee and the persons named as co-
accused with him were his employees. Petitioner was dependent on his sales persons for running of the business. He had never authorized his sales persons to sell from his licensed vends any liquor other than for which licence was granted in his favour.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the status report as well as record of the case.
7. The challan has been presented for offences under Sections 39(1)(a), 39(2)(a), 40, 44, H.P. Excise Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC. Investigating agency has not been able to collect any evidence to show that petitioner was involved in ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2022 20:05:38 :::CIS 5 manufacture of the liquor recovered from his vends or from his sales persons. As far as the co-accused of the petitioner are concerned, they have also pleaded their innocence while seeking bail. Their bail .
applications have also been allowed by this Court. The guilt of the petitioner and his co-accused individually or in conspiracy with each other has to be proved after trial.
8. Though the samples of liquor have been opined to be unfit for human consumption, but it is not the case of respondent-State that any consumer of such product, after having purchased the liquor from the licence vends of the petitioner have suffered any ailment, physical discomfort or death. Evidently, the challan has not been presented under Section 41 of the H.P. Excise Act which punishes the offender of mixing any liquor with any noxious drugs or any foreign ingredients likely to cause disability or grievous hurt or death to human being.
9. It is not the case of the respondent that in case of release of petitioner on bail, the trial of the case is likely to be affected adversely.
It is stated on behalf of the respondent that petitioner is an accused in another case of similar nature at police station Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. and is in custody in the said case also. The case registered against the petitioner at police station Sundernagar has its own facts and ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2022 20:05:38 :::CIS 6 at-least for the purposes of bail, the registration of said case will not be an impediment in grant of bail to the petitioner in the present case.
10. Petitioner is in custody since 17.02.2022. His further .
custody will not yield any fruitful purpose. Pre trial incarceration cannot be ordered as a matter of rule. The trial of the case is likely to take considerable time before conclusion.
11. Petitioner is permanent resident of State of Himachal Pradesh and there is no likelihood of his absconding or fleeing from the course of justice.
12. to In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 10.2022, dated 24.01.2022, under Sections 39(1)(a), 39(2)
(a), 40, 44 of H.P. Excise Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120- B of IPC, registered at Police Station Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court. This order shall, however, be subject to the following conditions:
i) Petitioner shall regularly attend the trial of the case before learned Trial Court and shall not cause any delay in its conclusion.
ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner, whatsoever and shall not dissuade any person from speaking the truth in relation to the facts of the case in hand.
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2022 20:05:38 :::CIS 7iii) Petitioner shall be liable for immediate arrest in the instant case in the event of petitioners violating the conditions of this bail.
(iv) Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of learned trial Court till completion of trial.
.
13. Any expression of opinion herein-above shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and shall be deemed only for the purpose of disposal of this petition.
(Satyen Vaidya)
r Judge
May 23, 2022
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2022 20:05:38 :::CIS