Madhya Pradesh High Court
Munesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 April, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No. 21228/2022
(MUNESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated : 29/04/2022
Shri S.S. Rajput, Counsel for applicant.
Ms. Kalpana Parmar, Counsel for State.
Case diary is available.
This is second application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for
grant of bail. The previous application was dismissed by order dated
11.01.2022
passed in M.Cr.C. No.1159/2022.
The applicant has been arrested on 05.12.2021 in connection
with Crime No.418/2021 registered by Police Station - Myana District
Guna (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 34(2) of Excise
Act.
It is submitted by Counsel for applicant that according to the
prosecution case, 62 liters of illicit liquor has been seized from the
possession of applicant. The previous bail application was dismissed
with liberty to revive the prayer after undergoing some reasonable
period of detention. The applicant is in jail since 05.12.2021. The trial
is likely to take sufficiently long time and there is no possibility of his
absconding or tampering with prosecution case.
Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by Counsel
for State. It is submitted that as per case diary, the applicant has a
criminal history and as many as 16 criminal cases were registered
against him which are as under :
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No. 21228/2022
(MUNESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
vkijkf/kd fjdkMZ
equs'k f'kdkjh iq= NksVsyky f'kdkjh mez 30 lky fuoklh ukuk[ksMh xquk
Ø- Fkkuk vi0 Ø- /kkjk
1 dSaV [email protected] 25 ch vkElZ ,DV
2 dSaV [email protected] 13 tqvk ,DV
3 dSaV [email protected] 323] 294] 506ch] Hkknfo0
4 dSaV [email protected] 341] 323] 506ch] 34] Hkknfo0
5 dSaV [email protected] 341] 323] 294] 506ch 34 Hkknfo0
6 dSaV [email protected] 25ch vkElZ ,DV
7 dSaV [email protected] 341] 323] 294] 506ch 34 Hkknfo0
8 dSaV [email protected] 324] 323] 506ch] 34 Hkknfo0
9 dSaV [email protected] 457] 380 Hkknfo0
10 dSaV [email protected] 457] 380 Hkknfo0
11 dSaV [email protected] 379 Hkknfo0
12 dSaV [email protected] 14 e0iz0 jkT; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e
13 dSaV [email protected] 25ch vkElZ ,DV
14 dSaV [email protected] 13 tqvk ,DV
15 dSaV [email protected] [email protected] vkElZ ,DV
16 dSaV 626 @21 34 vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e
Ikzfrca/kkRed dk;Zokgh
1 dSaV bLr Ø-& [email protected] 41(2) 110 crpc
2 dSaV bLr Ø-& [email protected] 151, 107, 116 crpc
3 dSaV bLr Ø-& [email protected] 41(2) 110 crpc
4 dSaV bLr Ø-& [email protected] 41(2) 110 crpc
5 dSaV bLr Ø-& [email protected] 41(2) 110 crpc
6 dSaV bLr Ø-& [email protected] 110 crpc
7 dSaV bLr Ø-& [email protected] 110 crpc
8 dSaV bLr Ø-& [email protected] 110 crpc
9 dSaV bLr Ø-& [email protected] 110 crpc
Thus, it is clear that one more offence under Section 34 of
Excise Act was registered against applicant. However, it is fairly
conceded by Counsel for State that no case for heinous offences was
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No. 21228/2022
(MUNESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
ever registered against him.
Considering the period of detention as well as criminal
antecedents, this Court is of the considered opinion that he can be
granted bail only on the stringent condition.
Accordingly, 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.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac
Only) 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.
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. In case, the title deeds have been deposited, then the same
shall not be returned unless and until the surety amount is deposited.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No. 21228/2022
(MUNESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
In the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the
case of Aparna Bhat & Ors. vs. State of M.P. passed on 18/3/2021
in Criminal Appeal No.329/2021, the intimation regarding grant of
bail be sent to the complainant.
Certified copy as per rules.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
Aman
AMAN TIWARI
2022.04.29 17:54:57 +05'30'
