2017 Supreme(Chh) 364
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CHANDRA BHUSHAN BAJPAI, J.
Smt. Laxmi Nag W/o Mutling Gota - Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
MCRC No. 5283 of 2017
Decided On : 31-08- 2017
For the Applicant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Neeraj Mehta, Panel Lawyer.
Headnote:
CG Excise Act, 1915 - Section 34 subsection (2) and Section 59-A - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 439 - First bail application - Police seized 10 bulk litre hand made country liquor - Ant submits that after investigation charge sheet has been filed against the present applicant and the co-accused Mutling Gota and the same is pending before the CJM Sukma as Cr. Case No. 245/2017. This is her first bail application before this Court. She is first offender aged about 30 years. As per allegation, during investigation police seized 10 bulk litre hand made country liquor from the conscious possession of the applicant and also seized 10 bulk litre hand made country liquor from her husband Mutling Gota, the then Assistant Sub Inspector - Court had rejected the application or kept it pending but as there was no order of the said Court regarding the bail petition filed by the applicant – Held, Case of the said co-accused comes under the ambit of Section 34 subsection (2) of the Act of 1915, not under the provisions of Section 34 sub-section (1)(a) and (b) of the Act of 1915. Therefore, looking to the quantity of liquor so seized from co-accused Mutling Gota, his case cannot come under the ambit of Section 34 sub-section (1)(a) and (b) of the Act of 1915. With this, the proposition of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the case of the co-accused is bailable one is not correct and not as per the provisions of law - procedure shall not be in a haste or against the settled provisions of law. Though grant of bail in the given matter is within the jurisdiction of the concerned Judge but at the same time, the appreciation that the matter is bailable one is inappropriate and not as per the provisions of law. Learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned is directed not to repeat this type of grave legal mistake in future - Registrar General is directed to send copy of the order to the Judges working within the State for future guidance and compliance - Copy of the order be also sent to concerned Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewara for future guidance and compliance - MCRC allowed
1. Heard finally.
2. The applicant has preferred this application for grant of bail as he is arrested on 13-7-2017 in connection with Crime No. 55/2017 registered in PS Sukma Civil Distt. South Bastar, Dantewara (CG) for offence punishable under Section 34 subsection (2) of the CG Excise Act, 1915.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after investigation charge sheet has been filed against the present applicant and the co-accused Mutling Gota and the same is pending before the CJM Sukma as Cr. Case No. 245/2017. This is her first bail application before this Court. She is first offender aged about 30 years. As per allegation, during investigation police seized 10 bulk litre hand made country liquor from the conscious possession of the applicant and also seized 10 bulk litre hand made country liquor from her husband Mutling Gota, the then Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Bhejji, Revenue Distt. Sukma. The Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar Dantewara vide order dated 19-7-2017 allowed the application filed by husband of the applicant and not decided the application for bail filed by the applicant expressly whether learned Court had rejected the application or kept it pending but as there was no order of the said Court regarding the bail petition filed by the applicant, she had no option but to move this Court for grant of bail. It is submitted that the trial may take some time. Her case is at par with her husband who had also filed an affidavit in support of instant MCRC as husband of the applicant. She will not commit any offence in future if granted bail. She may be granted bail as the trial may take time.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant on the basis of the quantity of the liquor so seized from the applicant. However he fairly concedes that no criminal antecedent of the applicant is reported by the police in the case diary.
5. Perused the matter.
6. As the applicant is the first offender, she is in jail since 1 month and 18 days till date, charge sheet has been filed, trial may take some time, the co-accused husband of the applicant has been granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewara, case of the present applicant is similar to her husband, and as submitted she will not commit any crime in future and considering entire facts of the case, I am inclined to grant one opportunity to the applicant to live peacefully in the society without committing any crime. Consequently, instant MCRC is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety of the like sum to the satisfaction of the CJM Sukma for her appearance before the said Court regularly as and when directed by the said Court.
7. It is made clear that this order granting bail to the applicant shall stand cancelled automatically without reference to the bench by the Court below if (i) the trial Court finds that the applicant suppressed filing or pendency of any other application for grant of bail before this court or the Hon'ble Apex Court intentionally, (ii) the applicant does not cooperate in the trial; (iii) the applicant is found to be involved in any offence of the like nature: (iv) the trial Court finds that the applicant remains absent without any sufficient and cogent reason. The applicant is further directed to appear before the concerned SHO/IO/in-charge of the Police Station Sukma, Civil Distt. South Bastar, Dantewara (C.G.) on every 1st and 3rd Monday of every month at 11 am positively till trial. If the applicant fails to do so, concerned police may intimate the trial Court and if the trial Court holds that the applicant remains absent without any cogent and proper reason as directed, the bail granted to applicant shall stand cancelled by the trial Court without further reference to the bench under intimation. If bail is cancelled automatically in view of above,