Satyawan @ Lala vs State Of Haryana

Shalini Singh Nagpal, J.

Petitione seeks regular bail in vide FIR No. 160 dated 21.06.2026, ^under Se^ction 61 of Haryana Excise Act, 2020, Pоlice station

Uchana, ^District Jind. This ^is the first petitic seeking regular bail

^{2. It is} alleged that ^on 21.06.2026 when ASI Samarjeet ^along with ^other police officials present Bu ^stand Kakhand, DE^istrict Jind, ^secret information ^received regarding Satyawan ^{@ Lala tra}welling ⁱⁿ

carrying ^illicit liquor, ^{upon which} police party apprel^{nended the} petitioner. Upon ^ch of ^{his car,} 36 ^boxe containing ^{country-rmade} liquor were recovered. Out of those, 22 boxes contained quarters of country-made liquor of brand ‘Masti Malta’ and 14 boxes contained quarters of country-made liquor of brand ‘Sahi’. In all 1800 quarters of country-made liquor were recovered from possession of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was in custody w.e.f. 21.06.2026. Maximum sentence under Section 61 of Haryana Excise Act was 3 years. Recovery had already been effected and further detention of petitioner in custody would not serve any useful purpose as trial would take long. Learned counsel has referred to PPrrraaabbbhhhaaakkkaaarrr TTTeeewwwaaarrriii VVVeeerrrsssuuuss SStttaaattteee ooofff UUU...PPP... aaannnddd aaannnooottthhheeerrr 222000222000(((111111))) SSSCCCCCC 666444888 aaannnddd NNNaaarrraaayyyaaannn VVVeeerrrsssuuusss TTThhheee SSStttaaatttee ooff MMaaadddhhhyyyaa PPrrraaadddeeessshhh,, CCrrriiimmmiiinnnaaall AAppppppeeeaaall NNooo.. 2211177799 ooff 2200022266 ddeeeccciiidddeeedd oonn 22222...000444...222000222666,, to support his prayer for regular bail.

Learned State counsel has vehementally opposed the prayer for regular bail submitting that petitioner was a previous convict in 14 cases under the Excise Act. He himself disclosed the particulars of 14 cases under Section 61/1/14 of the Act wherein he had been convicted. This apart, there were 4 other cases pending against him under the Excise Act besides an FIR under Section 174-A. Considering his antecedents, he did not deserve the concession of bail.

Although the offence allegedly committed by petitioner is punishable with imprisonment upto 3 years, his criminal antecedents are relevant for exercising discretion in his favour. Petitioner is habitual of violating the law with impunity and repeating the offence, undeterred by fourteen convictions in cases of similar nature. Hence, he is not entitled to concession for regular bail.

Judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant. The case of NNaaarrraaayyyaaannn VVVeeerrrsssuuusss TTThhheee SSStttaaattteee ooofff MMMaaadddhhhyyyaaa PPPrrraaadddeeessshhh,, ((sssuuuppprrraaa)) related to cancellation of bail which had already been granted. It was observed that bail could not be cancelled only on account of involvement in subsequent offence. In PPrrraaabbbhhhaaakkkaaarrr TTTeeewwwaaarrriii VVVeeerrrsssuuusss SSStttaaattteee ooofff UUU...PPP.. aannnddd aaannnooottthhheeerrr (((sssuuuppprrraaa)) Hon’ble Supreme Court held that pendency of criminal cases against the accused could not be made basis for refusal of prayer for bail. Both the cases are distinguishable on facts. Present is not a case of mere pendency of other criminal cases.

Dismissed.

Nothing observed hereinabove shall be taken as an expression of opinion on merits of the case.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.