MCRC/27045/2018 of PADEEP Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 1 January 2000

Arguments

The High Court Of Madhya PradeshMCRC-27045-2018

(PADEEPVs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

[26][-][07][-][2018]Jabalpur, Dated :

Shri Shreyash Pandit, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Rohit Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

This is the first bail application filed by the applicant Pradeep S/oShri Bhagwansingh Yadav under Section 438 of the Code of CriminalProcedure Code, 1973 in connection with Crime No. 134/2018registered at Police Station Naryavali, District Sagar under Section34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act 1915.

In short the prosecution story is that on 04.05.2018 it was learnt bythe police through an informant that some persons are involved in sellingthe liquor without license from Mara Dhaba from a farm land. It issubmits that the police visited the spot and seized 1656 bulk liters ofliquor as a result of which, an offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P.Excise Act has been registered against the present applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant hasbeen falsely implicated in the matter and no case is made out against theapplicant. The only allegation against the applicant is that the liquorwhich has been seized from a open farm belongs to the present applicant.The case has been registered against the applicant only on the basis of thestatement may by the main accused. He further submits that the name ofthe applicant has also not been mentioned in the First Information Report.He further relied on the judgement passed by the Division Bench of thisCourt in the case of Naresh K. Lahria Vs. State of M.P., reported in2004 (4) MPHT 205, in which the Division Bench of this Court has heldthat there is no bar for granting the anticipatory bail as provided underSection 59(A) of the M.P. Excise Act. He further submits that the otherco-accused person i.e. Suresh Kori has been granted anticipatory bail bythis Court.

Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Stateopposes the prayer for grant of bail on the ground that the liquor inquestion was found in the land belongs to the applicant.

Perused the case diary.

From perusal of the case diary, it appears that the liquor has beenkept on the land of the applicant. So far as granting anticipatory bail tothe other co-accused person i.e. Suresh Kori is concerned, there is no evidence against the Suresh Kori.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid, I do not find any reason to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

(MISS VANDANA KASREKAR)JUDGE

ashish

Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Date: 2018.07.31 16:55:56 +05'30'