High CourtsSingle Bench

Jitendra Kamariya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 25 July 2023 · Citation: (2023) 07 MP CK 0117

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 437(3), 439 · Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 — Section 34(2)
RESULT
Allowed/Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 32291 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

13 paragraphs · 430 words

Satyendra Kumar Singh, J

1.

With the consent, heard finally.

2.

Perused the case diary.

3.

This is third application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the applicant.

4.

Applicant's first bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.8.2017 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.9072/2017 while second application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was allowed vide order dated 25.9.2017 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.15081/2017.

5.

The applicant has been arrested on 3.7.2023 in connection with Crime No.291/2017 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Datia (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of Excise Act.

6.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant was found having 120 bulk litres of illicit country made liquor in his possession for the purposes of sale without having any valid license.

7.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was enlarged on bail vide order dated 25.9.2017 and was regularly appearing before the Trial Court but due to his poor health condition could not appear before the Trial Court on 23.3.2022, therefore, non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against him and he was arrested on 3.7.2023 and since then he is in custody. The applicant was not well due to which he could not appear before the Trial Court. His non-appearance was not intentional. Custodial interrogation or trial is not required in the matter. Trial will take time for its conclusion. Hence, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on bail.

8.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.

9.

Having considered the rival submissions, material pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant, period of custody so also considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, hence, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.

10.

It is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned 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. It is further directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437 (3) of Cr. P. C.

11.

This application is allowed and stands disposed of.

12.

Certified copy, as per rules.