Court No. - 37
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3874 of 2018 Applicant :- Sandeep Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 19.11.2017 at 15:30 hours about which F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at 18:20 hours. As per the version of the F.I.R. country made spurious liquor was being prepared in the house of applicant and on this information Excise Team along with police raided the house of applicant but the applicant managed to escape from his house. One Scooter No.U.P. 15L-7234 was parked outside the house of applicant and 48 pouches of liquor were recovered from that scooter. The raid was conducted by Excise Team and they found 200 litres drum which was filled with sprit and adulterated liquor was also found in the house which was taken by raiding team in their possession and recovery memo was prepared. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of police and excise officers during the course of investigation on different dates and all of them supported version of F.I.R. He further submitted that the applicant is quite innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case by the police and excise officers just to show good work in the eyes of higher authority.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the Scooter No.U.P. 15L-7234 was not of the applicant which was seized by the police. During the investigation the Investigating Officer has failed to show that this scooter belongs to the applicant. He further submitted that the applicant is living in a joint family. They are four brothers, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was in exclusive possession of this house where the alleged raid was committed. The applicant was not arrested on the spot and nothing incriminating article has been recovered from the possession or pointing out of the applicant. The recovery was made by the authority in the house of the joint family of the applicant, therefore, he is not solely responsible for the alleged recovery from the house. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that as per the version of F.I.R., it cannot be said that the applicant was preparing spurious liquor. For preparation of spurious liquor, big stove (Bhatti), Gas Cylinder, big Karahi are articles which should have been found at the place of occurrence but nothing has been found on the place of occurrence. Thus, no offence under Sections 272 and 273 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant.
He further submitted that there is no report in this regard that any poisonous thing was found in liquor which is dangerous to life hence offence under Sections 272 and 273 I.P.C. is not made out. The applicant has neither manufactured any noxious alcohol nor there is any report in respect of this. There is general allegation against the applicant. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present matter. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paras 18 to 22 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.12.2017 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the investigation of the present case is almost completed but forensic science laboratory report is awaited but from the evidence collected up till now a prima facie offence punishable under Sections 60, 60A, 72 Excise Act and 272, 273 I.P.C. is made out against the accused-appellant. He further submitted that there is previous criminal history of the applicant, therefore, he is not entitled for bail and bail application of the applicant may be rejected.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant Sandeep involved in Case Crime No.333 of 2017, under Sections 60, 60(A), 72 Excise Act and Sections 272, 273 IPC, Police Station Hastinapur, District Meerut be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court.
4. The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which he is suspected.
5. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the court below be at liberty to cancel the bail without any reference to this Court.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 Jitendra