Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 15 (CHH)

ABHISHEK CHOUHAN v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2019-01-03

SHARAD KUMAR GUPTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Gupta, J. This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. preferred by the applicants before this Court and their no bail application is pending before any other court. 2. The applicants have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 39/2018 registered in police station Bhairamgarh, Distt. Bijapur (CG) for offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the CG Excise Act. 3. At the outset, counsel for the applicants submits that he is not pressing the bail application of applicant No. 1 Abhishek Chauhan. 4. Therefore, the present bail application so far as it relates to applicant No. 1 Abhishek Chauhan, is rejected as not pressed. 5. Heard the bail application of applicant No. 2 Devi Singh Dayama and applicant No. 3 Manohar Malviya. 6. Perused the case diary. 7. Prosecution story in brief is that on 10-8-2018 Sub Inspector Ramchandra Sahu posted at Police Station Bhairamgarh apprehended the truck bearing registration No. SP 09 KD 2139. The driver of the said truck was co-accused Abhishek Chauhan. Applicants Devi Singh Dayama and Manohar Malviya were also present in the said truck. Said Sub Inspector seized 6,705 bulk litre of foreign liquor from possession of co-accused Abhishek Chauhan and his associates. Another co-accused Narsingh was in contact with applicant Manohar Malviya and liquor contractor Awadhesh Yadav through mobile. 8. Counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants No. 2 and 3 are innocent and falsely implicated. He further submits that above applicants were not in possession of the alleged liquor. One coaccused Narsingh has been granted bail by this Court, thus applicants No. 2 and 3 may also be granted bail 9. On the other hand, the State Counsel opposed the bail application. 10. Case of the applicants No. 2 and 3 is not similar to the case of coaccused Narsingh who has been granted bail by this Court. Coaccused Narsingh was not present in the said vehicle but the applicants were present in the vehicle and seizure has been effected from co-accused Abhishek Chouhan and his associates. 11. 10. Case of the applicants No. 2 and 3 is not similar to the case of coaccused Narsingh who has been granted bail by this Court. Coaccused Narsingh was not present in the said vehicle but the applicants were present in the vehicle and seizure has been effected from co-accused Abhishek Chouhan and his associates. 11. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, huge quantity of the liquor seized in the case and the fact that case of the present applicants is more severe than that of co-accused Narsingh, looking to the the impact of granting bail on the society, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicants No. 2 and 3. 12. Consequently, the MCRC is dismissed.