MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Mohd Fahim Anwar, J.
Inesh Solanki - Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 37903 of 2020
Decided On : 12-10-2020
Bail - M.P.Excise Act - The court granted bail to the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. due to the applicant being in judicial custody since 22.9.2020 and the exigency of Covid-19. The applicant was directed to comply with bail conditions and Covid-19 norms upon release.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed an application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for being arrested in connection with an offense under the M.P.Excise Act, involving the seizure of 60 bulk liters of liquor from his illegal possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the bail application considering the applicant's custody since 22.9.2020 and the Covid-19 situation, directing the applicant to comply with bail conditions and Covid-19 norms upon release.
Issues: Bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for offenses under the M.P.Excise Act, custody since 22.9.2020, and Covid-19 situation.
Ratio Decidendi: Grant of bail based on the applicant's custody and the Covid-19 situation, with directions to comply with bail conditions and Covid-19 norms upon release.
Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was directed to comply with bail conditions and Covid-19 norms upon release.
JUDGMENT
Mohd Fahim Anwar, J. - Case diary is available with the Penal Lawyer.
2. Heard.
3. This is first application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant who has been arrested i n connection with Crime No.551/2020, registered at Police Station Lalbag Distt. Burhanpur for the offences punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P.Excise Act.
4. As per the prosecution story, the allegation against the applicant is that from his illegal possession 60 bulk liters of liquor was seized.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent person. He is in custody since 22/09/2020. The trial will take a long time to conclude. It is further submitted that there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, i t is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.
6. Learned counsel for State has opposed the application for grant of bail.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances o f the case and the fact that the applicant is in judicial custody since 22.9.2020 and also the exigency of Covid-19, this application is allowed.
8. It i s directed that t h e applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The applicant shall abide by the conditions as enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. and in the event of breach of condition of bail, the trial Court will b e competent to take coercive action against the applicant.
9. In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the applicant shall also comply the rules and norms of social distancing. Further, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto W.P.No.1/2020, it would be appropriate to issue the following direction to the jail authority :-
1. The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the applicant by the jail doctor before his release.
2. The applicant shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'. For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.
3. If it is found that the applicant is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing him in appropriate quarantine facility.
10. This M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.
11. C.C. as per rules.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.