The court's decision was based on the provisions of Section 59-A of the M.P. Excise Act and the quantity of seized liquor, in addition to the applicant's absconding status and previous withdrawn bail application.

JUDGMENT

Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J. - Heard with the aid of case diary.

2. This is the second application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. as applicant Gangadin Patel apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.322/2016 registered at Police Station Damua Distt. Chhindwara for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2), 42 and 44 of the M.P. Excise Act.

3. Earlier anticipatory bail application was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 2/3/2020 passed in MCrC no.7055/2020.

4. As per prosecution case, on 17/12/2016, the police got an input that in a Bolero jeep bearing registration No.MP-48-BC-1304 (for short, "the vehicle") a huge quantity of liquor is being transported illegally. Thereupon, the police party chased the vehicle. However, the occupants of the vehicle fled away deserting it. Upon the search of it, 473.400 bulk litres of Indian factory made foreign spirit was found filled in various sizes of bottles. In the course of investigation, it was found that the vehicle was owned by coaccused Sudhakar and the co-accused Rajesh @ Mammu Dongre was the driver of it and at the relevant time co-accused Rajesh was an employee (salesman) of an English wine shop situated in village Bagdona. It is alleged that the seized wine belongs to the applicant and co-accused Rajesh transported that wine on the behest of the applicant.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence. It is further submitted that the applicant was the liquor contractor. So, offence under Section 34 (2) of the M.P. Excise Act is not made out against the applicant. He is ready to cooperate in the investigation. In the event of arrest, his reputation will be ruined. Under these circumstances, applicant prays for anticipatory bail.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that earlier bail application of the applicant was also dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 2/3/2020 passed in MCrC no.7055/2020. Thereafter, there is no change in the circumstance. The applicant is still absconding and sufficient evidence is available against the applicant to connect him with the crime. So, looking to the provisions of Section 59-A of the MP Excise Act, the applicant should not be released on anticipatory bail.

7. Earlier anticipatory bail application of the applicant was also dismissed a s withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 2/3/2020 passed in MCrC no.7055/2020. Thereafter, there is no change in the circumstance and the applicant is still absconding, So, looking to the allegation and the quantity of the seized liquor and the provisions of Section 59-A of the MP Excise Act, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.