Back
2022 Supreme(HP) 275
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
SURENDER KUMAR S/O SHRI CHUNI LAL – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 1261 of 2022
Decided On : 24-06-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: JAGAT PAL.
For the Respondents: P.K. BHATTI, BHARAT BHUSHAN, KUNAL THAKUR.
Point of Law: No fruitful purpose shall be served by prolonging custody of petitioner in instant case till conclusion of trial, which is likely to take sometime before conclusion.
Headnote:
Himachal Pradesh Excise Act - Sections 39(1)(a) & (c), 47 & 50 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 304 and 120B - Criminal conspiracy - Manufacture of spurious liquor - Indulged in supplying illicit/spurious liquor - police officials of Police Post Joghoo under Police Station conducted a raid at place Nal (Gujjarhatti) forest and seized a number of articles evidently used in manufacture/illicit bottling etc. of liquor. Initially, case was registered. During investigation, implication of various persons in manufacture of spurious liquor, its bottling and sale etc. was found. Such persons were arrested. It was also found that various acts of fraud, forgery etc. had also been committed in pursuance to criminal conspiracy between various persons. An employee of one of persons arrayed as an accused was found to have died by consuming spurious Liquor - No fruitful purpose shall be served by prolonging custody of petitioner in instant case till conclusion of trial, which is likely to take sometime before conclusion - There is also nothing on record to suggest that liquor allegedly supplied by petitioner was not fit for human consumption. (Para 9)
Finding of the court: No fruitful purpose shall be served by prolonging custody of petitioner in instant case till conclusion of trial, which is likely to take sometime before conclusion. The implication of petitioner in other cases, as noticed above, relates to different offences allegedly committed by him during different periods. The fate of such cases is not known and therefore it cannot be considered as an impediment in grant of bail to the petitioner in the present case. Nothing is stated to be recovered from petitioner in instant case. There is also nothing on record to suggest that the liquor allegedly supplied by petitioner was not fit for human consumption - It is not case of respondent that in case of grant of bail to petitioner, trial of case shall be affected adversely. It is also not alleged against the petitioner that he has potential to tamper with prosecution evidence.
Result: Petition is allowed
ORDER :
1. Petitioner is an accused in case FIR No. 25/2022, dated 22.01.2022, under Sections 39(1)(a), (c), 47 and 50 of Himachal Pradesh Excise Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 304 and 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.
2. Brief facts are that on 21.01.2022, police officials of Police Post Joghoo under Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. conducted a raid at place Nal (Gujjarhatti) forest and seized a number of articles evidently used in manufacture/illicit bottling etc. of liquor. Initially, the case was registered under Sections 39(1)(c), 47 and 50 of Himachal Pradesh Excise Act. During investigation, implication of various persons in manufacture of spurious liquor, its bottling and sale etc. was found. Such persons were arrested. It was also found that various acts of fraud, forgery etc. had also been committed in pursuance to criminal conspiracy between various persons. An employee of one of the persons arrayed as an accused was found to have died by consuming the spurious liquor. Accordingly, Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 304 and 120-B of IPC were added.
3. Petitioner was found involved in selling the spurious liquor at place Slapad (Sundernagar) in District Mandi and also at other places to small vendors. Involvement of petitioner was also found in case registered at Police Station Sundernagar, under Sections 304, 308 and 120-B of IPC, vide FIR No. 15/2022, dated 19.01.2022. Petitioner was in custody in aforesaid FIR of Police Station Sundernagar. His custody was got transferred for investigation in the instant case. Thus, allegations against the petitioner in nutshell are that he was involved along with another person named Surender Kumar in supplying the illicit/spurious liquor in District Mandi etc.
4. Petitioner has sought his bail on the grounds that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He has nothing to do with the crime. Petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Baggad, P.O. Salnu, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. and there is no likelihood of his absconding from the course of justice. He will face the trial and will abide by all the conditions as may be imposed. He will not try to jump the bail and will also not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner, whatsoever.
5. Application has been opposed, on the ground that petitioner is an accused in more than one cases of similar nature. He is an accused in FIR No. 15/2022, dated 19.01.2022, under Sections 304, 308 and 120(B) of IPC, registered at Police Station Sundernagar. Petitioner is also alleged to have been involved in cases registered vide FIR No. 69/2003, dated 30.07.2003, under Section 61-1-14 Excise Act, P.S. Bharari, FIR No. 33/2005, dated 09.02.2005 under Section 61-1-14 Excise Act, FIR No. 80/2020, dated 07.05.2020, under Section 39 (1)(A) of H.P. Excise Act, FIR No. 88/15, dated 13.12.2015, under Section 39-33-11 H.P. Excise Act, P.S. Arki, FIR No. 177/20, dated 12.09.2020, under Section 39 (1)(A) of H.P. Excise Act, FIR No. 15/22, dated 19.01.2022, under Sections 304, 308, 420, 120-B of IPC and Sections 39, 40, 41 of H.P. Excise Act, P.S. Sundernagar, FIR No. 169/11, dated 11.11.2011, under Section 279 of IPC and Section 187 of MV Act and 61-1-14 Excise Act, P.S. Ghumarwin, FIR No. 33/06, dated 04.02.2006, under Sections 325, 341, 323, 504, 506, 34 of IPC P.S. Barmana and FIR No. 253/19, dated 03.12.2019 under Sections 354, 506 of IPC.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the status report.
7. Record reveals that investigation in the case has already been completed and challan has been filed in the Court of competent jurisdiction. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is a bootlegger and had indulged in supplying the illicit/spurious liquor. Petitioner is not alleged of involved in manufacture of spurious liquor.
8. Petitioner has remained in custody for more than one year approxim
