Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)
Vivek Rusia, J.
Vijaysingh - Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. - Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 41350 of 2020
Decided On : 02-11-2020
Bail - M.P Excise Act - The court granted bail to the applicant under section 439 Cr.P.C in connection with a case registered under section 34(2) of the M.P Excise Act, considering the quantity of contraband alleged to have been recovered from the applicant and the absence of criminal antecedents.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C seeking release in connection with a case registered under section 34(2) of the M.P Excise Act for the recovery of illicit liquor. The applicant claimed innocence and absence of criminal antecedents.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the bail application, considering the quantity of contraband recovered and the absence of criminal antecedents, without commenting on the merit of the case. The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, and to abide by the conditions under section 437(3) Cr.P.C.
Issues: Bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C in connection with a case registered under section 34(2) of the M.P Excise Act for the recovery of illicit liquor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the quantity of contraband recovered and the absence of criminal antecedents in granting bail to the applicant, without commenting on the merit of the case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant on bail upon fulfilling certain conditions.
JUDGMENT
Vivek Rusia, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.
2. This is first application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C seeking bail in connection with Crime No.471/2020 registered at police station Sarangpur, district Rajgarh for the offence punishable under section 34(2) of the M.P Excise Act.
3. As per prosecution case 58 bulk liters of country made illicit liquor has been recovered from the possession of the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the offence. There is no criminal antecedents against him. He is in custody since 24.09.2020. The offence is triable by Magistrate. The investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. There is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.
5. Prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State.
6. Case-Diary perused.
7. Taking into consideration the quantity of contraband alleged to have been recovered from the applicant coupled with the fact there is no criminal antecedents against him, without commenting on the merit of the case, the application is allowed and he is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C.
8. Before releasing the applicant from the custody the jail authorities are directed to medically examine him in order to rule out the possibility of COVID -19 infections and shall comply with the direction given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition No. 1/2020.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
