ORDER

1. This order shall government with the disposal of these bail applications as they are arisen out of same crime of the police station, hence, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

2. M.Cr.C. No.52207/2023 is bail application filed on behalf of the applicant-Dharamveer Singh under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.

3. M.Cr.C. No.50635/2023 is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant-Gulab Singh under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail. Earlier application M.Cr.C. No.47122/2023 is dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.10.2023.

4. The applicants are apprehending their arrest in relation to FIR/Crime No.304/2023, registered at Police Station-Ringnod, District-Ratlam, for the offence punishable under sections 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this offence. Applicant Dharamveer Singh is license holder, therefore he cannot be made accused under section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act. Applicants are implicated in the case only on the basis of memo of Statement of co-accused persons and nothing has been seized from the applicants. Applicants are ready to co-operate with the investigation and final conclusion of the trial will take considerable long time. Hence, he prays that the application of the applicants be allowed and they be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra learned Panel Lawyer opposed the prayer by submitting that custodial interrogation of applicants is necessary. Provisions of anticipatory bail are not applicable for offences under section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act. So far as the license of applicant Dharamveer Singh is concerned, such type of license cannot empower the applicant to sell out the liquor from another place other than the authorised outlet. As per prosecution case, the seized liquor is of illegal liquor, hence the applicants are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. So far as, the fact that the applicant-Dharamveer Singh has been made accused only on the basis of section 27 of Evidence Act is concerned, the view o f Hon'ble apex Court is worth referable here. The Hon'ble apex court vide order dated 20.7.2022, passed in Criminal appeal No. 1005 of 2022 in the matter of The State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar has held as under :--

“8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2021(4) SCC 1, perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial.

9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the High court fell into an error in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents.”

9. The Hon'ble apex court in the case of Samarth Kumar (supra), had set aside the order of High court whereby the High court granted pre arrest bail to the accused only on the ground that no recovery was effected from the respondents and that they had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused.

10. On this aspect, the provisions of section 59-A of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 is also worth referable here as under :--

"59-A. Certain offence under the Act to be non- bailable.--

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974) or section 59 of the Act,

(i) no application for an anticipatory bail shall be entertained by any court in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under Section 49-A or in respect of a person not being a person holding a licence under the Act or rules made thereunder who is accused of an offence covered by clause (a) or clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 34 with quantity of liquor found at the