IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.L. KOCHAR, J.
Rajendra S/o Rajaram Pal – Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. – Respondent
Misc. Cr. Case No. 2605 of 2002
Decided On : 26-07-2002
Bail - Criminal Procedure Code - Madhya Pradesh Excise Act - Section 437, Section 59A - The court discussed the provisions of section 437 sub-section (6) of the Criminal Procedure Code and section 59A of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act. It highlighted the specific bar for entertaining anticipatory bail under section 59A and concluded that the provisions of section 437 sub-section (6) of the Criminal Procedure Code are applicable in addition to the limitations for grant of bail as specified in section 59A.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed for bail under section 437 sub-section (6) of the Criminal Procedure Code, stating that the trial had not been completed within sixty days and therefore, he was entitled to bail. The trial court dismissed the application, citing the special provision for bail under section 59A of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act for certain offences related to illicit liquor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no bar under section 59 of the Act for considering bail of the accused facing trial of the offence of the Excise Act. It concluded that the provisions of section 437 sub-section (6) of the Criminal Procedure Code are applicable in addition to the limitations for grant of bail as specified in section 59A.
Issues: The main issue was whether the provisions of section 437 sub-section (6) of the Criminal Procedure Code were applicable for the offence punishable under the Excise Act, considering the special provision for bail under section 59A of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of section 437 sub-section (6) of the Criminal Procedure Code are applicable in addition to the limitations for grant of bail as specified in section 59A of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act.
Final Decision: The application for bail was allowed, and the applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court.
ORDER :
1. This second application, has been filed by the applicant for grant of bail order the Provisions of section 437 sub-section (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’).
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that learned trial Court fixed the case for summoning the prosecution witnesses and their examination by order dated 22-4-2002. Thereafter, within sixty days, trial has not been completed and the applicant is in custody, therefore, in view of the Provision under section 437 sub-section (6), Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
3. The applicant has filed bail application before the trial Court on the aforesaid ground but the learned trail Court has dismissed the same by order dated 17-7-2002 holding that the provision under section 437, Criminal Procedure Code will not apply in the case of the Excise Act in which more than 50 bulk litres illicit liquor is shown to be seized by the prosecution because for these offences there is special Provision for bail under section 59A (ii) of the M.P. Excise Act (for short ‘the Act’).
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that there is no bar under section 59 of the Act, which has a special Provision for consideration of bail of the accused facing trial of the offence of the Excise Act. Under section 59(A)(i) there is specific bar for entertaining anticipatory bail by the Court for the offence under section 49-A or other offences as mentioned therein. If it was an intention of legislation not to apply the Provisions of section 437 or section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, the same would have been prescribed in this Provision as prescribed for anticipatory bail.
5. To decide the controversy, section 59-A of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act is reproduced as under:-
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 sub-section (1) of section 34 with quantity of liquor found at the time or in the course of detection of such offence exceeding fifty bulk litres.
(ii) a person, accused of an offence punishable under section 49-A or 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 sub-section (i) of section 34 with quantity of liquor found at the time or in the course of detection of such offence exceeding fifty bulk litres shall not be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release and in case such an application is opposed by the Public Prosecutor, unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Provided that no court shall order for detention of such person in custody during the course of investigation for total period exceeding 60 days where it relates to an offence covered by clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 34 with quantity of liquor found at the time or in the course of detection of the offence under section 49-A and on the expiry of such of 60 days or 120 days, as the case may be and in the event of the report of complaint not being filed the accused shall be released on furnishing bail.
(iii) the limitation for grant of bail is specified in clause (ii) are in addition to the limitation prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974) or any other law for the
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.