AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subodh Abhyankar, J
This is applicant’s first bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. as he is implicated in connection with Crime No.518/2020 registered at
Police Station Bilpank, District Ratlam (MP) for offence punishable under Section 34(2), 49(A) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 and Section
328, 420, 467, 468 of the IPC. The applicant is in custody since 11/08/2021.
Allegation against the applicant is that he was involved in the aforesaid case wherein huge quantity of liquor manufacturing material has been seized
and the applicant was acting between the manufacturer of the material for liquor as also the manufacturer of liquor.
Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case only on the basis of memos prepared under Section
27 of the Evidence Act and there is no seizure affected from the present applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is lodged in jail since
11/08/2021 and final conclusion of trial is likely to take sufficient long time. Hence, it is submitted that the application be allowed and he be released on
bail.
Counsel for the respondent / State, on the other hand has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that there are various telephonic conversations on
record in the form of transcript as also the CDR to connect the applicants with each other and the offence. Counsel has drawn the attention of this
Court to flowchart prepared by the prosecution specifying as to how the accused persons were connected to each other and so far as the present
applicant Rajendra Nigam is concerned, he has conversed with another co-accused Uncle @ Alok for as many as 562 times, 32 times to Hansraj
Yadav, 36 times to Sanjay Raywal and 100 times to Rohit Jaiswal. The accused Uncle @ Alok was also connected to most of the accused persons
and flowchart regarding his telephonic conversation is also placed on record. Hence, it is submitted that no case for grant of bail is made out.
Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the case diary, this Court finds force with the contentions raised by learned counsel for the
State and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the complicity of the present applicant in the present case cannot be ruled out.
As a result, the application being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.