Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 8383 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 18 November, 2024

                                                                 Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010221812024




                                                           2024:GAU-AS:11184

                         THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                            Case No. : AB/2809/2024

         SHRI PRAG RAJ SINGLA AND ANR
         S/O LATE TARSEM LAL SINGLA
         R/O HOUSE NO. 30, SHIVA NIWAS,
         BY-LANE NO. 1, AJANTA PATH, SURVEY BELTOLA, GUWAHATI, DIST.
         KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
         PIN-781028

         2: SHRI TUSHAR SINGLA
          S/O SHRI PRAG RAJ SINGLA
         R/O HOUSE NO. 30
          SHIVA NIWAS

         BY-LANE NO. 1

         AJANTA PATH

         SURVEY
         BELTOLA

         GUWAHATI

         DIST. KAMRUP (M)
         ASSAM
         PIN-78102

         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
         REP BY THE PP, ASSAM

         2:INSPECTOR OF EXCISE

          NOONMATI CIRCLE
                                                                         Page No.# 2/8

            NOONMATI
            GUWAHATI

            DIST. KAMRUP (M)

            PIN-78102

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, MS. L WANGSA,MS A DAS,MR D S
DEKA,MR. T DEURI

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. D GOGOI,MR D GOGOI(SC, EXCISE DEPT.)




                                  BEFORE
               HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

                                         ORDER

18.11.2024

1. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. K. N. Choudhury for the petitioners,

namely (i) Prag Raj Singla, and (ii) Tushar Singla.

2. The petitioners have filed this application under Section 482 of the BNSS,

2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail as they are apprehending arrest in

connection with Noonmati Excise Case No. 06/2024 under Section 53(1)(a) &

(d) of the Assam Excise Act, 2000.

3. Heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the Excise Department.

4. The FIR unfolds that on 22.06.2024 at about 7 PM, on a tip off, Kamrup (M)

Excise Team caught a person named Dindayal Chaubey of Buxar district of Bihar

near Khanapara with some suspected fake liquor bottle caps in his vehicle

bearing registration No. AS-01FN-7200. He was taken to his residence at Forest Page No.# 3/8

Gate, Narengi Tiniali and various objectionable items like suspected fake liquor

bottle labels, fake liquor bottle caps, suspected flavor used for manufacturing

alcoholic liquor, suspected caramel etc. were recovered from his residence. On

being interrogated and confronted, he revealed that he was collecting the

objectionable items to supply to one Sri Diganta Neog. It was further revealed

that Diganta Neog was supposed to receive the items around 11.30 PM on the

same date from Dindayal Chaubey from his residence. The Investigating Team

waited for arrival of Diganta Neog and eventually caught him red handed while

he was collecting and loading the objectionable items in his vehicle bearing

registration No. AS-01DY-7220.

5. It was further alleged that both the miscreants were brought to Kamrup

Metro Excise Office for further interrogation and during interrogation, it was

unearthed that Sri Diganta Neog was running a network of supplying the

aforementioned fake articles throughout the State of Assam and some other

parts of Northeast India for manufacturing of spurious liquor causing huge loss

to the State exchequer as well as endangering human life.

6. It was also unearthed that one fake liquour manufacturing unit is

functioning at Kokrajhar district and another team went to Kokrajhar on

23.06.2024 as led by the Deputy Superintendent of Excise Kamrup Metro along

with Sri Diganta Neog. One fake liquor manufacturing establishment was found Page No.# 4/8

and huge quantity of fake labels, caps, ENA, caramel, empty plastic and glass

bottles, mono cartoons and machines suspected to be used for fixing bottle caps

and one blending vat, were recovered and seized.

7. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that nothing was recovered from

them. They were not apprehended at the place of seizure. The petitioners are

apprehending arrest as they have been roped in on the statement of coaccused.

On 06.08.2024, a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS was issued against

the petitioner No. 2.

8. The petitioners are manufacturers of PET bottle caps and aluminum caps in

Assam and for the last 24 years they have been supplying bottles and caps to

various industries such as FMCG, pharmaceutical, country liquor manufacturers

etc. all over the Northeastern States. They have the required license and

permission from the competent authority to run bottle manufacturing factory.

They are reputed industrialists and have distinctive reputation. They have

already cooperated with the investigation and they are willing to cooperate with

the remaining part of investigation.

9. The learned Standing Counsel, Excise Department has submitted that no

subsequent change of circumstance have been mentioned in this petition,

despite the fact that earlier the petitioners prayer for Anticipatory Bail has been

rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2024, passed by this Court in AB Page No.# 5/8

No. 2151/2024.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S. A. Raja 2005 (8) SCC, 380, wherein it has been observed that:-

" ...... All these facts must have been stated by the respondent in his previous applications When there was no change of circumstances, the learned Judge may not have granted bail to the respondent In the Order passed on 14 2005 the learned Single Judge had stated that the respondent herein was likely to influence the witnesses. That order was challenged before this Court and this Court deemed to interfere with that order within a short period, the impugned Order was passed without adverting to any of the points dealt with by the learned Single Judge who declined to grant bail to the respondent."

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Shamim Khan Vs The State of

Jharkhand in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl,) No.(s). 9449/2021, vide

order dated 16.12.2021, wherein it has been observed that:-

"Even before us, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any change of circumstances to invoke the jurisdiction of filing second application under Section 438 of the Code before the High Court.

We deprecate such practice of filing second application under Section 438 of the Code after the first being rejected. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and find no reason Page No.# 6/8

to interfere in our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution."

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. R. Ananda Babu Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu

& Anr. In SLP (Crl.) No. 213/2021, vide order dated 28.01.2021, wherein it

has been observed that:-

"As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (respondent No. 2) is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge.

To observe sobriety, we refrain from making any further observation, except to observe, that the impugned order, to say the least, is perverse; and also because no prejudice should be caused to respondent No.2 and affect the trial against him."

13. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is

trite law that judgments are not to be read like a statute. Every

observation is not ratio decidendi. The complaint of a case under the

Excise Act cannot be considered at par with the complaints of other

criminal cases, as in an Excise case, the complaint is finally filed after

thorough investigation, and in this case, it is pertinent to note that the

petitioners were not named as accused. It is further submitted that the Page No.# 7/8

petitioner's house was searched but nothing was seized in connection with

this case. Moreover, the offence is not a heinous offence.

14. The petitioners have also prayed for bail on the ground that the

petitioner no. 1 is suffering from heart problem and the petitioner no. 2 is

suffering from jaundice. Unlike, the allegation of the respondent, the

petitioner is not evading to cooperate with the investigation but the

petitioner is willing to co-operate with the investigation. If the petitioner is

granted bail, he will definitely extend his cooperation by all means.

15. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection.

16. The allegation against the petitioners are of serious nature. Indeed

selling spurious liquor results in health hazard. The submission of the

learned Standing Counsel, Excise Department that there are incriminating

materials against the petitioners being complicit cannot be ignored.

17. However, I have considered the age of the petitioner no. 1, who is a

middle aged person and suffering from heart condition and is advised for

hospitalization for coronary angiogram. Annexure-8 of the petition is the

certificate issued by Dr. M. K. Keshan, a Senior Medicine Specialist from

Guwahati. Thereby, the prayer for pre-arrest bail of petitioner no. 1 is Page No.# 8/8

allowed.

18. However, in view of my foregoing discussions, I am not inclined to

grant Pre-arrest bail to petitioner no. 2. No medical certificate has been

annexed to support that the petitioner no. 2 is suffering from jaundice.

19. On the other hand, in the event of his arrest, the petitioner no. 1,

Prag Raj Singla, aged about 57 years, shall be enlarged on bail of Rs.

50,000/-, with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the

arresting authority under the conditions that:-

                      (i)             The petitioners shall refrain from such
                      activities with which they are alleged,

                      (ii)            The petitioners shall appear before the

Investigating Officer on every fortnight till completion of investigation, and

(iii) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.

20. The pre-arrest bail prayer of the petitioner no. 2, Shri Tushar Singla is

rejected at this stage.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant