Ramdas Batham vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6813 MP

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.21282/2022 Ramdas Batham Vs. State of M.P.

Gwalior, Dated:06/05/2022

Shri Mohit Shivhare, Counsel for the applicant.

Shri C.P. Singh, Counsel for the State.

Case Diary is available.

This first application under Section 439 of CrPC has been filed

for grant of bail.

The applicant has been arrested on 3/4/2022 in connection with

Crime No.111/2021 registered at Police Station Bijoli, District

Gwalior for offence under Sections 34(1) and 49(A) of the M.P

Excise Act.

It is submitted that as per the prosecution case, on 19/6/2021

seven bulk liters of country made liquor is alleged to have been

seized from the possession of the applicant. The FSL report has been

received, according to which, the liquor is found to be unfit for

human consumption, but the applicant is in jail for the last one

month. The charge-sheet has been filed after the statutory period of

six months, as provided under Section 61 of MP Excise Act. In view

of the nature of liquor seized from the possession of the applicant, he

is ready and willing to abide by any stringent condition which may be

imposed by the Court. The trial is likely to take sufficiently long time

and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the

prosecution case.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.21282/2022 Ramdas Batham Vs. State of M.P.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the

counsel for the State. It is submitted that as per the case diary, the

applicant has no criminal antecedents.

In view of the nature of liquor seized from the possession of

the applicant, this Court is of the considered opinion that he can be

granted bail only on the stringent condition of furnishing cash surety.

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.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.

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

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.21282/2022 Ramdas Batham Vs. State of M.P.

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.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2022.05.07 15:43:58 +05'30'