AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J
Lawyers are not physically appearing in the Court in view of the unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to pandemic of novel corona
virus (COVID-19).
The present second application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No.290/2018,
Police Station Bichiwara, District Dungarpur for the offence under Section 19/54A of Excise Act.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not remotely connected with the recovery of liquor in the present case. He, therefore,
prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation reveals the involvement of the present petitioner in the present case and the
charge sheet under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. has already been filed before the competent court.
I have considered the submissions made at Bar and considering the seriousness of the charges and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of
the offence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the
petitioner at this stage.
Accordingly, the present second bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.