High CourtsSingle Bench

Rajesh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 25 November 2020 · Citation: (2020) 11 MP CK 0132

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 — Section 34(2), 44
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 43231 Of 2020
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

28 paragraphs · 495 words

Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J

This is first application of the applicant Rajesh filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicant was arrested on 12.10.2020 in connection

with Crime No.449/2020 registered at Police Station Parasiya District Chhindwara for the offence punishable under Section 34(2), 44 of M.P. Excise

Act.

A s per the prosecution case on 12.10.2020 on the information of informant police stopped one tata car bearing registration no. MP-20-FA-3311 which

was being driven by co-accused Suresh @ Monu and co-accused Hemant & Bhagwandas were also travelling in that vehicle and seized 72 bulk liter

of english liquor from their possession, which was illegally being carried by the them in that car. On interrogation, co-accused Hemant and

Bhagwandas informed the police that they took that wine at the instance of applicant Rajesh. So, police also implicated the applicant in the crime and

arrested hin on 12.10.2020.

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

record to connect the applicant with the crime. Police only on the basis of memorandum of co-accused implicated the applicant in the crime while the

confessional statement to police cannot be accepted as legal evidence against the applicant in the absence of any other incriminating piece of

evidence. The applicant has been in custody since 12.10.2020, and conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the contention of learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that applicant has no criminal

past, he is in custody since 12.10.2020, conclusion of trial will take time, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it

is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety

in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned C.J.M/trial Court for his appearance before the concerned 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 trial;

3.

The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to

dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court;

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

6.

The applicant will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

C.C. on payment of usual charges.