Chattisgarh High Court
Suresh Kumar Sonjhari vs State Of Chhattisgarh 12 ... on 20 May, 2019
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3263 of 2019
Suresh Kumar Sonjhari S/o Maheshwar Prasad Aged About 30 Years R/o
Village Madai, (Bhatapara), Police Station Seeptar, (Police Station Seeptar Is
Wrongly Mention In The Impugned Order The Correct Police Station Is Seepat),
District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station
Seepat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Shri Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri K. K. Singh, PL for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 20/05/2019
1. The accused/applicant has moved this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 164/2019 registered at Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the CG Excise Act.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 8 bulk liters of illicit liquor was seized by the police from the present applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that as the applicant is in 2 custody since 02.05.2019 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 8 bulk liters of illicit liquor has been seized from him which is more than prescribed limit of 5 bulk liters, but looking to the fact that the applicant is in custody since 02.05.2019, 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 applicant that he has falsely been implicated in case, I am of the opinion that present is the fit case, in which, the applicant 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 applicant shall be released on bail, subject to following conditions:
That, the applicant shall furnish a specific undertaking that while on bail, he will not commit any excise offence, otherwise bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled and shall co- operate the prosecution during trial. 3
That, the accused/applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the concerned Investigating Officer as and when required and the accused/applicant 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/applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. Certified copy, as per rules.
Sd/-
Sanjay K. Agrawal Vacation Judge Ashu