Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Learned counsel for the applicant Hrithik alias Chhanga Nishad submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been fallaciously implicated in the crime. It is submitted that applicant Hrithik alias Chhanga Nishad was in possession of the vehicle which he took on rent from the applicant Bharat Lal Mishra who is owner of the vehicle. He places reliance on a decision in the case of Naresh Kumar Lahria v. State of M.P., 2003 Supreme (MP) 1017, wherein the Division Bench has dealt with constitutional validity of Section 59-A of Excise Act and held that the provisions are not violative to Article 21 of the Constitution and umbrella of protection under Section 438 CrPC can be granted, if the case is not covered by the provisions of Section 59-A of Excise Act.

6. On the above premise, learned counsel for both the applicants, pray that the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11600 3 MCRC-6548-2026

7. In contrast, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the applicant Hrithik alias Chhanga has criminal past inasmuch as seven criminal cases have been registered against him which includes two cases pertaining to Excise Act, although he admits that applicant Bharat Lal Mishra has no criminal past. He further submits that investigation is still going-on and the custodial interrogation of the applicants will be required. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the applications.