Back
2016 Supreme(Chh) 34
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Goutam Bhaduri, J.
Gyanchand Jain – Appellant
Vs.
State of C.G. – Respondent
M.Cr.C. (A) No. 1295 of 2015
Decided On : 10-02-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :K. Tripti Rao, Advocate
For the Respondents: Anant Bajpai, Panel Lawyer
Headnote:
Chhattisgarh Excise Act - Section 34- Excise Act – Section 34 - Trial Court - Several complaint of illegal liquor trade and mining - It is contended that the applicant in discharge of his duty as a local correspondence of the newspaper had taken out various information under the Right to Information Act and subsequently has raised his voice by the paper publication news highlighting illegal sale of liquor in the area and time and again has reported the matter said news were published in the newspaper wherein the allegations were clamped against few of the of the village along-with few Government officers who allowed the illegal sale of liquor in the area - It is further stated that the applicant had also raised voice against the scrap-holders that they were allowed to do all illegal business without any by blocking the roads and report of illegal mining was also highlighted. It is further stated that because of the report and publication made, few of the arrest were made that of the people who were involved in sale of illegal liquor and other illegal activities – Held, The situation of backyard without the roof, the possibility of implanting liquor can not be ruled out in given set of facts - Taking the totality of the facts in the background of the applicant that he is a Journalist who appears to have made several complaint of illegal liquor trade and mining; further taking into fact that the applicant is not a resident of the vicinity wherefrom the shop is being run and place of seizure of liquor from the backyard of the shop, it can also lead to infer that any person can easily climb the wall and implant liquor in such place - Further considering the fact that the applicant used to lock the shop and go away to his residence and in the subsequent morning when he came the seizure was made, the conduct of applicant appears to draw inference that the liquor if any actually possessed may not have been kept in such manner in open sky which could have been taken away at village - Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the seizure so made raises the questions of doubt. Consequently, I find it to be a fit case to extend the benefit of Section 438 to applicant - It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail by the officer arresting him on furnishing a personal bond to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer applicant shall also abide by the following conditions - that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer – Application allowed
Goutam Bhaduri, J.
1. Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 419/2014 registered at Police Station- Khairagad, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, the applicant has preferred this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail. As per the prosecution story, in brief, on 27.09.2014 acting upon a secret information, when the shop of the applicant was raided, the Police personnel have seized 25.920 bulk liters of Goa whiskey which was kept for sale at back room of Kirana shop which belonged to the applicant. Subsequently, a case was registered against the applicant for the offence u/s. 34(2) of the Excise Act.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case for the reason that the applicant is a Correspondence & Reporter of the daily newspaper of Haribhoomi & Nai Duniya in the area. It is contended that the applicant in discharge of his duty as a local correspondence of the newspaper had taken out various information under the Right to Information Act and subsequently has raised his voice by the paper publication news highlighting illegal sale of liquor in the area and time and again has reported the matter. The said news were published in the newspaper wherein the allegations were clamped against few of the Panchayat Karmis of the village along-with few Government officers who allowed the illegal sale of liquor in the area. It is further stated that the applicant had also raised voice against the scrap-holders (Kabadi) that they were allowed to do all illegal business without any licence by blocking the roads and report of illegal mining was also highlighted. It is further stated that because of the report and publication made, few of the arrest were made that of the people who were involved in sale of illegal liquor and other illegal activities.
3. Learned counsel further referred to the document filed along-with the application which are bunch of newspaper publication and stated that on 26.06.2014, the applicant had informed the Superintendent of Police about raising concern of his safety since he had made publication of the news of illegal sale of liquor and illegal mining etc., as such, he was given the life threat by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Jaalbandha and few of the people who were involved in the liquor business. Further, it is submitted that on a report made by the applicant subsequently the police officials by an intimation under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. informed the applicant that the report so made are non-cognizable offence and the issue was closed with an advice to file the complaint before the competent Court. The counsel further referred to the letter sent to the Superintendent of Police on 30.09.2014, 14.10.2014, 10.11.2014 & 24.01.2015 wherein it was stated that in the backyard of the shop which was being run by the applicant, liquor was placed so as to implicate the applicant. The counsel would further submit that after the first alleged incident took place on 27.09.2014 however no arrest was made and subsequently again the liquor was implanted on the same place on 20.07.2015 whereby another case was registered and it was stated during second incidence the applicant fled away from scene. It is contended that in order to implicate the applicant in false case, the aggrieved persons with the connivance of few of the Police Officers in order to suppress the applicant from reporting and to arrest making the news public has such trap. It is contended after first incident again liquor was implanted at the same place at backyard of the premises of the applicant on 20.07.2015 whereby a separate crime was registered bearing No. 249/2015 and the applicant has been falsely implicated.
4. Learned counsel/Further referred to the case reported in 2004 (4) M.P.H.T. 205 (D) : 2007 (1) M.P.H.T. 39 (CG), 2007 (1) C.G.L.J. 8 and 200
