AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant.
The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.101/2020 registered at Police Station-Sleemnabad, District Katni for commission
of offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act.
The case of the prosecution against the applicant, in short, is that the applicant was found in possession of 360 liters of country made liquor.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is being falsely implicated in this case. The police is trying to arrest the applicant in
connection with the above mentioned crime number on the basis of the information furnished by the co-accused Ajeet Singh. Neither the applicant has
been found in possession of any type of country made liquor nor he has involved in selling the same. The trial will take considerable time for its
adjudication, therefore, it has been prayed to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the co-accused Ajeet Singh clearly
furnished the information that applicant is dealing with the illegal selling of the liquor and he has received that liquor from the applicant for selling it on
the eve of Holi festival. Looking to the aforesaid, case is made out against the applicant, therefore, benefit of anticipatory bail
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. No doubt, no other incriminating evidence is available against the applicant except
the information furnished by the co-accused Ajeet Singh under Section 26 of the Evidence Act. Also perused the information furnished by the accused
Ajeet Singh. Neither any liquor has been seized from the possession of the applicant nor any document pertaining to sell of liquor has been seized from
the possession of the applicant but liquor illegally kept by the co-accused Ajeet Singh has been seized from his house. Neither the applicant was
present there nor any document was seized from the spot or from the possession of the co-accused Ajeet Singh, which shows the implication of the
applicant in the present case. In these circumstances, this Court after considering the judgment of Naresh Kumar Lahria Vs. State of M.P. & others
2004 (4)MPHT 205, is inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Consequently, this first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of applicant is allowed.
 It is directed that the applicant-Rajesh alias Pillu Patel shall remain present before the Investigating Officer/concerned authority on or before
15/09/2020. It is also directed that in the event of arrest, applicant Rajesh alias Pillu Patel shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting
Officer, for his appearance before Investigating Officer whenever he is called and before the trial Court on all dates fixed in the case as also
complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
 It is further directed that if the applicant does not appear before the Investigating Officer/concerned authority on the given date, this order shall
Certified copy as per rules.
Â