Chhattisgarh High Court
MCRC/8199/2020 of RAMKHILAWAN SAHU Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 23 December 2020
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 8199 of 2020 Ramkhilawan Sahu S/o Late Shri Vijay Sahu, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Danikundi, Police Station And Tahsil Marwahi, District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8199 of 2020
Ramkhilawan Sahu S/o Late Shri Vijay Sahu, Aged About 34 YearsR/o Village Danikundi, Police Station And Tahsil Marwahi, DistrictGourela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh.---- Applicant R/o Village Danikundi, Police Station And Tahsil Marwahi, DistrictGourela- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh.---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, ExciseCircle Pendra, District Gourela- Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh.Circle Pendra, District Gourela- Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Applicant
:Shri Harshwardhan Jaiswal, Advocate
For Respondent/State :Shri Gurudev I. Sharan, G.A.
Hon'ble Justice Shri Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order on Board 23/12/2020
1. Heard on the application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.This isfirst bail application before this Court filed by the applicantfor grant of regularbail. The applicant has been arrested on15.10.2020 in connection with CrimeNo.36/2019 registered atP.S.-Excise Circle Pendra, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi,Chhattisgarh for theoffence under Section 34(a), 34 (2), 59(2)(a) of the CG. Excise Act.This isfirst bail application before this Court filed by the applicantfor grant of regularbail. The applicant has been arrested on15.10.2020 in connection with CrimeNo.36/2019 registered atP.S.-Excise Circle Pendra, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi,Chhattisgarh for theoffence under Section 34(a), 34 (2), 59(2)(a) of the CG. Excise Act.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant hasbeenfalsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since15.10.2020. Hence, it isprayed that the applicant may bereleased on regular bail.beenfalsely implicated in this case. He is in custody since15.10.2020. Hence, it isprayed that the applicant may bereleased on regular bail.
Page 1 of 2
3. Learned counsel for the State/non-applicant opposes theapplication and submission. It is submitted that in total 97.92 bulkliter illicit liquor hasbeen seized from the possession of theaccused. Hence, he is not entitled for grant of bail.application and submission. It is submitted that in total 97.92 bulkliter illicit liquor hasbeen seized from the possession of theaccused. Hence, he is not entitled for grant of bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the casediary.diary.
5. Considering on the submissions made and the contents of thecasediary, detention of the applicant till conclusion of the trialwould not serve any purpose. Hence, for these reasons, I am ofthe view that the applicationdeserves to be allowed.casediary, detention of the applicant till conclusion of the trialwould not serve any purpose. Hence, for these reasons, I am ofthe view that the applicationdeserves to be allowed.
6. Consequently, this application filed by the applicant underSection 439of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail is herebyallowed. It is directed that theapplicant shall be released on bailon his furnishing a personal bond in the sumof Rs.25,000/- withone surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of theconcernedCourt, for his appearance as and when directed.Section 439of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail is herebyallowed. It is directed that theapplicant shall be released on bailon his furnishing a personal bond in the sumof Rs.25,000/- withone surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of theconcernedCourt, for his appearance as and when directed.
7. Certified copy as per rules.
Nadim
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)JudgeJudge
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…