Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 74 (CHH)

AVINASH AASTIKAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2001-07-10

R.S.GARG

body2001
ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri R.S. Garg, J.: Heard. Case diary of crime No. 64912000 of police station, Bhilai Nagar for an offence punishable under Section 34(A) of the M.P. Excise Act perused. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and barring the statement of the co-accused no evidence is available against the applicant the applicant deserves to be released on bail. Opposing the application, Shri Ranveer Singh, learned counsel for the State, submits that the applicant who was present in the vehicle ran away from the spot and was later on apprehended. He also submits that in view of Section 59 of the Act, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. In the matter of Muraleedharan Vs. State of Kerala, while appreciating the provisions of Section 41-A of Kerala Abkari Act, the Supreme Court had observed that the provisions contained in Section 41- A of the Kerala Abkari Act are in per materia with Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, therefore, unless the Court records its satisfaction about the non-involvement of the accused or non-commission of the offence, bail cannot be granted. A perusal of Section 59 read with Section 34(1) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 would show that the same stringent test has been applied for grant of bail. The question regarding sufficiency of insufficiency of the evidence has also been considered by the Supreme Court in the said matter. The Sessions Judge, who granted the anticipatory bail in the said matter had observed "no material could be collected by the investigating agency to connect the petitioner with the crime except the confessional statement of the co-accused". The Supreme Court observed that it was not proper for the Sessions Judge to grant bail, especially anticipatory bail in cases involving offences for which the legislature has imposed stringent restrictions in regard to grant of even regular bail. The Supreme Court had observed that if regular bail cannot be granted, then anticipatory bail shall not be granted. In paragraph 7 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court showing its displeasure to grant of anticipatory bail had observed that if the regular bail cannot be granted after arrest, it is incomprehensible how the position would be less when the accused approaches the Court for pre-arrest bail knowing that he would also be implicated as an accused. In paragraph 7 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court showing its displeasure to grant of anticipatory bail had observed that if the regular bail cannot be granted after arrest, it is incomprehensible how the position would be less when the accused approaches the Court for pre-arrest bail knowing that he would also be implicated as an accused. In the present case, the allegations of the prosecution are that the Investigating Officer received an information that the present applicant was carrying illicit liquor in a vehicle but before he could be arrested he fled away from the spot. Looking to the nature of the allegations and the recoveries made from the spot, I do not consider present to be a fit case for admitting the applicant to bail. The application is rejected. Bail Application Rejected.