Chatar Singh vs State Of M.P

Heard.

During the course of submissions, learned counsel has stated that he wants to file the orders of coordinate Benches in which anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C has been granted in Excise cases. Let such orders be filed. Rest of the submissions from both the sides were heard, order to follow.

Later on :-

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed orders of coordinate Benches and also judgments of the Supreme Court in support of his anticipatory bail application.

The bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C has been filed in respect of Crime No.508/19, registered at police station - Sanwer, District - Indore in respect of offence under Section 34(2) of Excise Act.

As per prosecution story, on 14.12.2019, on the basis of secret information 270 bulk litres of country made liquor was seized from the house of the co-accused Inder Singh by Sanwer police. Inder Singh divulged the name of the applicant in his memo filed under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the memorandum statements of co-accused cannot be read in evidence against the present applicant. Hence, there is no evidence available against the applicant and, therefore, the applicant deserves to be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the State was heard who submits that there are as many as 11 to 12 criminal cases registered against the present applicant and number of them under the M.P. Excise Act and has opposed the anticipatory bail application.

Considered.

Presently, there is no evidence against the applicant because the memorandum against him made by the co-accused is not admissible in evidence. However, the memorandum statements of the co-accused provide a lead to make further investigation against the present applicant. For the effective investigation, interrogation in custody has always yielded better results. Section 59-A of M.P. Excise Act bars anticipatory bail in cases pertaining to Excise Act. Still this court, in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, has been granting bail to such persons implicated due to memorandum of the co-accused. Learned counsel has filed the copies of the orders of anticipatory bail granted to such accused persons. However, it can be seen that when the investigation is not over yet and therefore, it cannot be stated that there is no prospect of evidence against the applicant apart from inadmissible memorandum of the co-accused. The memorandum of the co-accused provide a lead for further investigation. It cannot be denied that on the basis of such lead when applicant is interrogated in custody, he may provide vital information which may be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. This is a case in which the applicant has already been an accused in number of cases pertaining to M.P. Excise Act. Hence, at the outset, it cannot be stated that applicant is being falsely implicated. Granting anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and exercise of such discretion in favour of the applicant in the present case would not be appropriate.

The application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C stands rejected.