Prakash @ Vicky vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J

This is first bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The petitioner is in custody since 28.07.2021 in connection with Crime No. 183/2021 registered at P.S.- Damua District-Chhindwara, (M.P.) for the

offence punishable under Section 34(2) & 42 of M.P. Excise Act.

Prosecution story, in short, is that on 27.07.2021, 62.10 bulk liters English Wine and country made liquor was seized from the possession of the

petitioner/accused and registered the aforesaid offence against him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no previous criminal antecedent under

Section 34(2) of MP Excise Act, therefore, there is no probability to repeat the offence. No liquor was seized from the possession of petitioner/

accused. Petitioner/accused is in custody since 28.07.2021. Charge-sheet has been filed. No further custodial interrogation is required in this case. It is

time of COVID-19 pandemic, due to this, trial will take time for its final disposal. There is no probability of his absconding or tampering with the

evidence of prosecution witness. petitioner/accused is breadwinner of his family, if he is kept in custody for an unlimited period then future of his

family will be spoiled. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for allowing this bail application.

Per-contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State while opposing the bail application submitting that petitioner/accused has previous criminal

antecedent, therefore he is not entitled for grant bail. Considering the contention of both the parties and this fact that petitioner/accused has no

previous criminal antecedent under Section 34(2) of MP Excise Act, therefore, there is no probability to repeat the offence, petitioner/accused is in

custody since 28.07.2021, charge-sheet has been filed, no further custodial interrogation is required in this case, it is time of COVID-19 pandemic, due

to this, trial will take time for its final disposal, there is no probability of his absconding or tampering with the evidence of prosecution witness, so, it

would not be appropriate to keep the petitioner in jail whole the trial. Therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, application of the petitioner

under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seems to be acceptable. Consequently, it is hereby allowed.

It is directed that petitioner- Prakash @ Vicky be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty

Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on the

dates given by the concerned Court. It is directed that the petitioner shall comply with the provisions of Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.

In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the petitioner shall also comply the rules and norms of social distancing. Further, in

view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo motto W.P.No.1/2020, it would be appropriate to issue the following direction to the jail

authority :-

The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the petitioner by the jail doctor before his release.

2 . The petitioner shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'. For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.

3 . If it is found that the petitioner is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing him in

appropriate quarantine facility.

Certified copy as per rules.