JUDGMENT 1. These are the first applications of the petitioners under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in crime No. 660 & 668/2019 registered under section 34(1)(a) and 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 at the Office of the Excise Circle, Badnawar District Dhar. 2. Regard being had to the similitude of the facts involved in both these petitions, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. For the convenience, facts are borrowed from the petition number 52714/2019. 3. According to the prosecution case, on 08.10.2019, Divisional Excise Flying Squad, Division Indore & Dhar received information regarding illegal transportation of India Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). Acting on this information, a team comprising officials of the Excise department reached on the place pointed out by the informer and barricaded the road at Pitgara Tiraha (trijunction), Badnawar. After waiting for some time, they noticed a truck bearing the same registered number PB- 11-CR-8293 as informed by the informer. They got the truck stopped. Driver, Helper and one other person sitting in the cabin of the truck revealed their names as Jagdish, Harnek and Sushil (petitioners). They further revealed that they were carrying IMFL and going to deliver it in Gujarat through Petlawad, Distt. Jhabua, M.P. On search, 1000 boxes containing 48 quarter bottles of 180 ml each total 48,000 quarter bottles containing 8640 bulk litres IMFL (whiskys) were found in the truck. The bottles were having label of 'Chandigarh Choice Pure Green Whiskey'. On test, the content of the bottles was found liquor. The petitioners could not produce any pass or permit, therefore, they all were taken into custody and the liquor was seized. A case bearing crime No.668/2019 under Section 34(1)(a) and 34(2) MP Excise Act, 1915 was registered. 4. The bail is pleaded on the grounds that the petitioners were transporting the seized liquor with a valid permit issued by Officer Incharge, Excise M/s Symposium Liquors LLP at Gajaraj Beverage Pvt. Ltd. Village Purkhali Distt. Ropar, Punjab. The same were shown to the officials of the department on the spot, but they tore and destroyed them and foisted false case on the petitioners. 5. It is further pleaded that during the investigation, the department issued a letter dated 18.10.2019 to the Managing Director, M/s Symposium Liquors LLP raising some queries. Ropar, Punjab. The same were shown to the officials of the department on the spot, but they tore and destroyed them and foisted false case on the petitioners. 5. It is further pleaded that during the investigation, the department issued a letter dated 18.10.2019 to the Managing Director, M/s Symposium Liquors LLP raising some queries. A specific query at point no.8 of this letter was raised as to whether the permit was issued to transport the seized liquor through M.P. and it was replied by letter dated 19.12.2019 positive. 6. The learned counsel drew my attention towards letter dated 22.11.2019 sent by Officer In-charge of M/s Symposium Liquors LLP in reply to the letter sent by the Excise Sub Inspector, Circle Badnawad, District Dhar making it clear that there is no practice in Punjab to mention batch number, other particulars or details of rout or names of intermediate stations/cities in the permit. It was also made clear that in Punjab, it is usual practice to mention only start and end/destination point in the permit. 7. The learned counsel also took me to the statement of Excise Officer, Randhir Singh, who had issued the permit. This officer has admitted in unambiguous language that he had issued the permit and this is a legal and valid permit. 8. It is also averred that the petitioners are 'Driver' and 'Helper' of the truck. They are illiterate persons. They were handed over permit and other document and asked to transport the liquor. Relying on them, they obeyed the direction of their employer. They were not aware about the veracity or legality of the documents handed over to them. Their intention was never to transport illegal liquor. They were transporting liquor under bonafide faith with valid documents. Besides, the Excise department has not made the owner or the persons involved in loading of liquor in the truck from the plant of M/s Symposium Liquors, Purkhedi, Punjab. They have been made scapegots. Therefore, they be granted bail. 9. In reply, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that two trucks were caught by the police at the same time. Similar quantity of 1000 liquor boxes was recovered from both the trucks. Similar crimes were registered against the persons found on board in both the trucks. 10. There is more than one reason to show that the petitioners were not innocent as claimed by them. Similar quantity of 1000 liquor boxes was recovered from both the trucks. Similar crimes were registered against the persons found on board in both the trucks. 10. There is more than one reason to show that the petitioners were not innocent as claimed by them. At the time of seizure/recovery, no permit or NOC or any other legal document was produced by the petitioners or the persons found in the trucks seized at the same time, even when they were asked to do so, while as per law; no liquor can be taken out even of the gate of the plant or transported without valid documents. 11. As per The Punjab Liquor Permit and Pass Rules, 1932: (i) No permit can be issued for more than 1000 boxes at a time while in this case; the permit was issued for 1050 boxes. (ii) After loading the liquor, the lorry has to be locked and sealed with the official seal of the Officer In-Charge and countersigned by him and the bulk shall not be broken in transit. These conditions are even mention at the bottom of the pass relied on by the petitioners. But in this case, at the time of search 50 boxes were not found in the truck and only 1000 boxes were found. This shows that either the truck was not sealed or the seals were broken on the way and 50 boxes were delivered somewhere else than the destination. (iii) As per procedure, first a person has to place order, then permit is issued and thereafter, pass for removal of the liquor from the distillery is issued. In this case, the order was placed on 06.09.2019 and the permit was issued on 01.10.2019, but the permit produced by the petitioners bears date of issuance 15.09.2019. No permit issued on 01.10.2019 is produced by the petitioners. (iv) As per Rules it is necessary to mention in the permit/NOC, the route by which the consignment is to be exported and the description, quantity and alcoholic strength of the spirituous preparations to be exported. To bolster this contention, two such permit/NOCs issued in some other cases by the officials of the State of Punjab showing particulars of consignment and route by which the consignment was to be transported mentioned therein are demonstrated. To bolster this contention, two such permit/NOCs issued in some other cases by the officials of the State of Punjab showing particulars of consignment and route by which the consignment was to be transported mentioned therein are demonstrated. In the present case, the permit produced by the petitioners later on does not contain such particulars or specific route, by which the consignment was to be transported. (v) Arrangements shall have to be made to deliver the consignment in the shortest possible time/rout, but in the case in hand, the petitioners has opted a rout which is almost double on both counts; the time and the distance. 12. A standing circular issued by the commissioner, Excise M.P. Distillery/2007-08/9 is referred by the learned Public Prosecutor inter alia directing that rout of carrying liquor should not be curved but it must be straight and simple. In the present case there was no need to even enter in Madhya Pradesh to go to Gujrat from Purkhali, Ropar, Punjab. A print out of google map is referred to support this contention. It is submitted that similar circular is issued in Punjab also, but due to paucity of time, it could not be collected. 13. All these fact shows that the permit produced at later stage cannot be believed at this stage. An inquiry in depth is required in this respect. 14. Further, the presumption to the commission of the offence available under Section 43 of the M.P. Excise Act and provisions of Section 41, 42 and 44 of the Act are also pressed into service to bolster the contentions and it is argued that the petitioners cannot escape the liability by making such statement that they are only driver and helper and were only complying with the direction of their employer. 15. Lastly, it is argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the present case is glaring example of parallel trade of illegal liquor under the guise of transport of liquor on the permit. It is common practice of the persons indulged in the liquor trade or transport that they pass several truck loads of liquor by holding the permit with them and produce the same whenever any truck is caught by the police. This way they successfully evade the duty/tax of crores of rupees. It is common practice of the persons indulged in the liquor trade or transport that they pass several truck loads of liquor by holding the permit with them and produce the same whenever any truck is caught by the police. This way they successfully evade the duty/tax of crores of rupees. Lack of prompt action to seize the record immediately after seizure of truck, provides a escape route to the perpetrators. When everyone associated with the trade or business of liquor is well aware of the fact that not even a single box containing bottles of liquor can be carried or transported without valid permit, the petitioners were carrying 1000 boxes of liquor and when they were well aware of their permitted destination, they were found at a place other that the place they had to go. All this makes it clear that the seized article was illegal liquor or the liquor was being transported without any valid or legal permit. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for bail. 16. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the permit and other documents were produced before the officials of the department at the time of recovery and seizure but they tore and threw it and now they are making false allegation in this regard. The petitioners had immediately made a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class on 11.10.2019 making such allegations along with the copy of the documents, which were allegedly produced before the officials of the department and these documents are part of the charge sheet and needs no further proof. 17. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the documents to show the route produced/relied on by the Public Prosecutor are not part of the charge sheet, therefore, they cannot be considered at this stage. No charge under section 467, 468, 471 of the IPC has been levelled against the petitioners that they have forged or fabricated the NOC/permit etc relied on by them, therefore, arguments of learned Public Prosecutor is misconceived. 18. Learned counsel took me to the facts mentioned in the complaint filed against the petitioners showing that twice the documents were verified by the Excise Sub Inspector Akansha Garg and no such allegation is made in the complaint that the permit/NOC or pass produced by the petitioners are forged or fabricated documents. 19. 18. Learned counsel took me to the facts mentioned in the complaint filed against the petitioners showing that twice the documents were verified by the Excise Sub Inspector Akansha Garg and no such allegation is made in the complaint that the permit/NOC or pass produced by the petitioners are forged or fabricated documents. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance on the orders of the co-ordinate bench of this Court dated 18.12.2019 & 23.09.2019 passed in MCRC No. 34265/2019 and order dated 17.01.2020 passed in MCRC 852/2020, whereby the Court has granted bail to the drivers in the peculiar circumstances of the case, but in the case in hand, facts and circumstances, which have been discussed above, are quite different, therefore, they cannot be followed in the present case. 20. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, allegation made against the petitioners, the grounds raised and circumstances put-forth by the prosecution I do not find it a fit case to allow bail to the petitioners. 21. Therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, the petition is dismissed accordingly.