Bhupendra vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This is the first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. as applicant Bhupendra apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.399/2018

registered at Police Station Excise Circle, Niwari, Distt. Niwari (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 34 (2) of the Excise Act.

As per prosecution case, on 27/2/2018 on the information of the informant, Excise Inspector, Circle Niwari raided one house situated at village

Urdaura and seized 2500 litre rectified spirit (O.P. liquor) from that house which was illegally kept in that house. It is alleged that applicant Bhupendra

Rai and co-accused Vikesh @ Vikki Rai and Smt. Kranti Rai had kept that liquor in that house. On that, Excise Inspector registered Excise Crime

No.399/2018 and investigated the matter. After investigation of that crime, he filed a charge sheet against the applicant before CJM, Tikamgarh. On

that charge sheet, Criminal Case no.1308/2018 was registered. Learned Magistrate issued an arrest warrant against the applicant, so applicant

apprehends his arrest in that case.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence. There is no evidence on record

to show that the house from which liquor was seized was in possession of the applicant or applicant kept seized liquor in that house. So, no offence

under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act is made out against the applicant from the charge-sheet. Excise Inspector wrongly impleaded the applicant in

the crime. Although, learned ASJ rejected the applicant's anticipatory bail application on the ground that the land in which the house is situated belongs

to the applicant, but there is no evidence on record to show that the land in which the said house was located belongs to the applicant. In the revenue

record, the land in which the said house is situated entered in the name of Smt. Kranti Rai and Harchandi, Anil Kumar, Nitesh Kumar and Bhajan

Kumar. There is no other evidence on record to show that the applicant is the owner of the said land. The applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial.

In the event of arrest, his reputation will be ruined. Under these circumstances, applicant prays for anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that sufficient evidence is available against the applicant on record to

connect him with the crime. So, looking to the provisions of Section 59-A of the MP Excise Act, the applicant should not be released on anticipatory

bail.

The provisions of Section 59-A of the M.P. Excise Act only applies where from the evidence collected by the prosecution during investigation prima

facie it appears that the applicant committed of an offence covered under Section 59-A of the M.P. Excise Act. While in this case, there is no

evidence on record to connect the applicant with the crime. There is no evidence on record to show that the house, in which Excise Inspector seized

2500 litre rectified spirit, was in possession of the applicant or the land in which the said house was located was in the name of the applicant. The

applicant has no criminal past. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the strength of evidence collected by the prosecution against

the present applicant, the application is allowed and it is directed that it is directed that in the event of surrendering before the trial Court within 15

days from today in connection with the aforesaid crime number, the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of

Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with a 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.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-

1.The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

2.The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

3.The applicant will not indulge himself/herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to

dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

4.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

5.The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

The applicant will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

C.C. as per rules.