Chattisgarh High Court
Govardhan God vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 June, 2024
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2825 of 2024
Govardhan God S/o Rangu God, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village-
Pausara, Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur (CG)
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Koni, District Bilaspur (CG)
---- Non-Applicant
(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)
For Applicant : Mr. Umesh Verma, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
15/06/2024
1.This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 129/2024 registered at Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.04.2024, Police Patrolling staff going to village Pausara for search operation, and during patrolling a secret information was received from Mukhbir resident of applicant's village that one person namely, Govardhan God has keeping huge quantity handmade mahua liquor for selling and on the basis of said information Police went to the incident and searched the house of the applicant and seized 30 bulk liters 2 handmade mahua liquor from the possession of the applicant and registered the aforesaid offences against the present applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and 30 bulk liters of hand made mahua liquor was not seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant. It is further argued by him that under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum punishment is three years. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that an application under Section 439 of CrPC has been dismissed vide order dated 15.04.2024 by the learned Court below. The applicant has not having any criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 10.04.2024 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the State/non-applicant would oppose the bail application and submit that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case before the competent Court and an application under Section 439 of CrPC has been dismissed vide order dated 15.04.2024 by the learned Court below. He further submits that the 30 bulk liters of the handmade mahua liquor was recovered from the possession of the applicant, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, 3 nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is having no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant is in jail since 10.04.2024 and the conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
7. Let the applicant - Govardhan God, involved in Crime No. 129/2024 registered at Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, 4 proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Ravi Mandavi