Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lakhan @ Golu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 May, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 30 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 20730 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
LAKHAN @ GOLU S/O ARUN SILAWAT, AGED ABOUT 26
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: BUSINESS PARSI MOHALLA
INDORE DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI LUCKY JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER .
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
SANYOGITAGANJ, INDORE DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MS. VINITA DWIVEDI PL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE
GENERAL. SHRI SANJIL JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [OBJ].
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard and perused the record.
This is the first bail application filed on behalf of the applicants under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail. The applicant
is arrested in relation to Crime No.193/2024 registered at Police Station-
Sanyogitaganj District-Indore for the offence under Section 34(2) of M.P.
Excise Act. The applicants is in jail since 04.05.2024.
2. As per prosecution story 51 bulk liters of illicit liquor has been seized
from the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the is innocent and has
falsely been implicated in this case. The applicant is in jail since 04.05.2024.
Final conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time. It is further submitted that
the applicant is having no criminal record under the similar offence. The
applicant is having no criminal record. Under these circumstances, counsel
prays for grant of bail to the applicants.
4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has opposed the
prayer and prays for rejection of the application. Counsel for the objector has
also opposed the prayer by submitting that the huge quantity was there in
possession of the applicant and they have converted the same into small
quantities. He has also placed reliance over the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court passed in the case of Union of India Vs. Ram Samujh & Anr.
reported in (1999)9 SCC 429.
I have heard the counsel for the parties. So far as the case of Union of
India Vs. Ram Samujh (supra) relied by counsel for objector, is concenred,
the same is passed with regard to the offence of NDPS Act, hence, the same is
not applicable in present case.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case, the custody period of the applicant, I am of the
view that it is a case, in which applicant may be released on bail. Consequently,
without commenting on the merits of the case, first bail application under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail filed on behalf
of applicant, stands allowed.
6. It is directed that applicant be released on bail on their furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with
one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court,
for his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that
they shall remain present before the concerned Court on all the dates fixed by it
during trial. They shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section
437(3) of Cr.P.C.
7. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial. However, in case of
bail jump and breach of any of the conditions of bail, it shall become
ineffective.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
