Chattisgarh High CourtLekhram Mahanand vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 September, 20151



                                                                          NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                           M.Cr.C.No. 4478 OF 2015

Lekhram Mahanand S/o Shri Pilsingh Mahanand aged about 32 years, R/o
Village Sajapali, P.S. Chura, District Gariyaband (C.G.)


                                                                   ---Applicant
                                    Versus
 State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Chura, District Gariyaband (C.G.)
                                                              ---Non-applicant


For Applicant     :        Mr. Arun Kochar, Advocate
For Non-applicant :        Mr. S.R.J. Jaiswal, P.L.


                  Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

                               Order on Board

02/09/2015

1.This is an application filed underSection 439of the Cr.P.C. for

grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection

with crime No.90/2015 registered at Police Station              Chura, District

Gariyaband (C.G.), for the offence punishable underSection 34(2)of the

Chhattisgarh Excise Act.2.        Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, 5.00 bulk liters of illicit

liquor was seized by the police from the present applicant.3.        Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in

custody from 08/08/2015. He further submits that the applicant has falsely

been implicated in the case, and therefore, the applicant may be released on

bail.4.        On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail2application.5.          I have heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the

case diary.6.          Taking into consideration the condition incorporated inSection 59-A(ii) of theC.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 there is no criminal antecedent of the present applicant and

only 5.00 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 it is first

offence of the applicant and he is in custody from 08/08/2015 and case is

triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and 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 underSection 439of 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.•   That, the accused/applicant shall make himself available for3interrogation 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.8.       Certified copy as per rules.Sd/-(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
                                                                            JUDGE
Tiwari