High CourtsSingle Bench

Jagdish And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 12 May 2023 · Citation: (2023) 05 MP CK 0052

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 437(3), 439 · Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 — Section 34(1), 34(2), 36 · Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 20547, 20996 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 426 words

Anil Verma, J

Applicants have filed these first bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Crime No.64/2023 registered at P.S. - Dahi, District Dhar (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 34(1), 34(2), 36 of the M. P. Excise Act.

As per the prosecution story, on 11.4.2023 police received secret information from the informant. Acting upon the said information, police party reached on the spot and recovered 120 bulk litres illicit country-made liquor from the possession of the applicant Gulab Singh Bhilala. Applicants Kalsingh and Jagdish have been implicated on the basis of memorandum statement given by Gulab Singh under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Accordingly a case has been registered against the present applicants.

Learned counsel for all the applicants contended that applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this matter. He further submits that there is no legal evidence available on record to connect the applicants with the aforementioned offence. Applicant Kalsingh is in custody since 12.4.2023, applicant Gulab Singh is in custody since 11.4.2023 and applicant Jagdish is in custody since 29.4.2023. Applicants Kalsingh and Gulab Singh are the permanent resident of District Dhar and applicant Jagdish is permanent resident of District Alirajpur. Final conclusion of trial will take considerable long time.

Hence, he prays that the applicants be released on bail.

Per-contra, learned PL for respondent/State opposes the bail applications and prays for its rejection, but he fairly admits that no criminal antecedent has been found against the present applicants.

Perused the case diary as well as the impugned order of the court below. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by counsel for the parties, nature and gravity of allegation as also taking note of the fact that the applicant Kalsingh is in custody since 12.4.2023, applicant Gulab Singh is in custody since 11.4.2023 and applicant Jagdish is in custody since 29.4.2023, applicants have no criminal background and final conclusion of trial will take considerable long time, I deem it proper to release the applicants on bail.

Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, both the MCRCs are allowed. It is directed that the applicants be released on bail upon their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.70,000/- each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the trial Court, as and when required. Applicants shall abide by the conditions enumerated u/S. 437(3) Cr.P.C.

C.C. as per rules.