Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
J.P. Gupta, J.
Rajkumar Batham & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 39797 of 2020
Decided On : 02-11-2020
Bail Application - M.P. Excise Act, 1915 - The court granted bail to the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, considering the lack of criminal antecedents, no likelihood of absconding, and the need to reduce prison crowding due to Covid-19.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with an offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, for transporting liquor without authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court, without commenting on the merits of the case, granted bail to the applicants, considering the lack of criminal antecedents, no likelihood of absconding, and the need to reduce prison crowding due to Covid-19.
Issues: Bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with an offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
Ratio Decidendi: The court granted bail to the applicants based on the lack of criminal antecedents, no likelihood of absconding, and the need to reduce prison crowding due to Covid-19, without commenting on the merits of the case.
Final Decision: The applicants were granted bail and directed to comply with the provisions of Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.
JUDGMENT
J. P. Gupta, J. - This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, who are in custody since 26.9.2020 in connection with Crime No.02/2020 registered at Police Station Flying Squad Exice, District Raisen for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.
2. Allegation against the applicants are that they were transporting 180 bulk litres of liquor in two vehicles and they have no authority to carry the same.
3. It is submitted that the applicants are innocent. They are in custody since 26.9.2020. Investigation is almost over. Trial will take time. There is no criminal antecedents against the applicants and there is no likelihood of their absconding and tempering with the material witnesses. Due to Covid-19, there is a need to reduce the crowd in the prison. Hence, they be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned P.L. opposed the application and prayed for rejection of the same.
5. Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, in view of this court, it is a fit case to grant bail. Hence, this application is allowed.
6. Applicants Rajkumar Batham, Vicky Nayak and Neelesh Bhargava are directed to be released on bail on each of them furnishing personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with a solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for their appearance before the trial Court on the dates so fixed by that Court during trial. It is directed that applicants shall comply the provisions of Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.
7. Certified copy 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
