Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 363 (MP)

Chironji Lal Jatav v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-03-03

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2022
JUDGMENT G.S. ahluwalia, J. - This second application under Section 439 of CrPC has been filed for grant of bail. First bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 31.01.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No.4969/2022. The applicant has been arrested on 24.12.2021 in connection with Crime No.105/2021 registered at Police Station Bargawan Distt. Sheopur for offence under Section(s) 34(2) and 49(a) of M.P. Excise act. According to the prosecution case, 57 bulk liters of country made liquor has been seized from the possession of the applicant. First bail application was rejected with liberty to revive after undergoing some reasonable period of detention as the applicant has criminal antecedents. according to Shri C.P. Singh, 4 more criminal cases were registered against the applicant. Out of which, one was registered in the year 2009 for offence under Sections 341, 294 of IPC which came to an end on the basis of compromise. another offence was registered in the year 2015 for offence under Sections 323, 294, 506-B, 34 of IPC and which also concluded on the basis of compromise. Third offence was registered under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise act and a fine of Rs.1,000/- was imposed. Fourth offence under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise act was registered, which is still pending and the present is the fifth criminal case. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. In view of the fact that out of four criminal cases, two offences were registered under M.P. Excise act, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant can be granted bail only on the stringent condition of furnishing cash surety. accordingly, considering the period of detention, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing cash surety of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Lac) or in the alternative on depositing his original title-deed(s) [not Rin Pustika] of the immovable property worth of more than the said amount, as directed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sharo @ Shahrukh Vs. The State of MP by order dated 06.09.2021 passed in SLP (Cri) No. 6321/2021 to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Committal Court to appear before the Court on the dates given by the concerned Court. The State of MP by order dated 06.09.2021 passed in SLP (Cri) No. 6321/2021 to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Committal Court to appear before the Court on the dates given by the concerned Court. This order shall remain effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective. It is made clear that single default in appearance before the Trial Court, or in case of registration of new offence, this bail order shall automatically come to an end and the cash surety so furnished by the applicant shall automatically stand forfeited without any reference to the Court. If the title deeds are deposited, then the same shall not be returned unless the cash surety amount is deposited. In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of aparna Bhat and others Vs. State of M.P. Passed on 18.03.2021 in Criminal appeal No. 329/2021, the intimation regarding grant of bail be sent to the complainant. CC as per rules.