Allowed

Prakash @ Bunti Gaharwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Mar 2022MCRC/1323/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a second bail application under Section 439 CrPC. The applicant, detained for over three months for possession of illicit liquor, was granted bail as seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution case and no criminal antecedents were found.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one local surety in the like sum.

Prakash @ Bunti Gaharwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No.1323 of 2022

¶5

Prakash @ Bunty Gaharwar, S/o Prem Gaharwar, aged about 25 years, R/o Minibasti, Jarhabhata, P.S. Civil Lines, Bilaspur Tehsil & District Bilaspur (CG)

¶6

---- Applicant (In Jail)

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur (CG)

¶9

....Non-applicant

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer.

¶11

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶12

14.3.2022

¶13

This is second application on behalf of applicant under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail as applicant is in custody since 28.11.2021 in connection with Crime No.1349/2021 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur for commission of offence punishable under Sections 34 (2) of the Excise Act.

¶14

Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.11.2021 police received secret information that some persons possessed of illicit liquor are in search of customer. Based on this information, police reached on place informed, during search seized 6.3 bulk liters of country-made liquor from possession of applicant and arrested him.

¶15

Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, learned counsel for applicant would submit that applicant has been falsely implicated in

¶16

¶17

aforementioned crime. After withdrawal of first bail application, seizure witnesses Sujeet Patel and Ajay Chouhan have been examined before trial Court and they have not supported case of prosecution. Copies of their deposition sheets are placed on record along with Covering Memo dated 8.3.2022. There are as many as five prosecution witnesses out of which three are yet to be examined before trial Court. Applicant is in jail since 28.11.2021 and thereby he has completed more than three months of detention period. Hence, applicant may be enlarged on regular bail.

¶18

On the other hand, Mr. Afroz Khan, learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes submissions of learned counsel for applicant and submits that applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on regular bail. Upon asking with respect to any other criminal antecedent against applicant, after going through case diary he submits that there is no mention of any other criminal antecedent against applicant in case diary. However, he submits that seizure witnesses have been examined before trial Court but their evidence is to be appreciated by trial Court.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of case, nature of allegations; submission of learned counsel for applicant that seizure witnesses have been examined before trial Court and they have not supported case of prosecution; submission of learned State Counsel that there is no mention of any other criminal antecedent in case against applicant,

¶21

¶22

without commenting anything on merits of case, I am inclined to grant regular bail to applicant.

¶23

Accordingly, bail application is allowed and it is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one local surety in the like sum to satisfaction of trial Court concerned on the conditions that;

¶24

a) he shall appear before the trial Court concerned regularly on each & every date unless exempted from appearance.

¶25

b) he shall not, in any manner, tamper with prosecution witnesses.

¶26

c) If applicant is found involved in similar offence in future, it will be open for the State to apply for cancellation of bail.

¶27

Certified copy as per rules.

¶28

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶29

roshan/-

Prakash @ Bunti Gaharwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash @ Bunti Gaharwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Budhia Auto T. P. Nagar Vs Divisional. Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Tax

Narayan Biswas Vs Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Pyari Dadsena Vs Nagendra Kumar Dadsena

Vimlarani and Ors. Vs Jagdish Lal and Ors.

Shivshankar Rahi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Budhram Nag Vs State of Chhattisgarh