Allowed

Chandrapratap Porte v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC19 Apr 2022MCRC/3202/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed Second bail application under Section 439 CrPC. Court granted regular bail on bond for applicant detained since January 8, 2022, in liquor possession case, noting prosecution witnesses had not supported case in court statements despite applicant's antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail allowed on furnishing bond of Rs.25,000 with one surety in like sum to satisfaction of Court.

Chandrapratap Porte Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3202 of 2022

¶3

Chandrapratap Porte S/o Shatruhan Singh Porte, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Khargahani, P.S. Kota, District - Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶4

---- Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Excise Circle, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶7

--- Respondent

¶8

For Applicant	: Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate.
For State	: Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, PL.

¶9

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board

¶10

19/04/2022

¶11

This is Second bail application of applicant filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular. First application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24.01.2022 in MCRC No.674/2022 with liberty to repeat prayer after examination of seizure witnesses.

¶12

Applicant is in jail since 08.01.2022 in connection with Crime No.111/2022, registered at Excise Circle, Bilsapur, District – Bilaspur, (C.G.), for commission of offence punishable under Sections 34(1)(A), 34(2) & 59(A)(2) of CG Excise Act.

¶13

Case of prosecution is that on 08.01.2022 official of Excise Department upon receiving secret information of applicant in possession of illicit liquor in his house, reached to house of applicant, during search, seized 26.44 bulk litres of handmade mahua liquor from his house. Based on seizure of liquor, applicant was arrested in aforementioned crime.

¶14

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged seizure of liquor was from residential accommodation of applicant, where other inmates are also residing, hence, applicant cannot be said to be in exclusive and conscious possession of illicit liquor. After withdrawal of first application, material witnesses ie seizure witnesses have been examined before trial Court, they have not supported case of prosecution. Deposition sheets are placed on record as Annexure A-3.

¶15

Applicant is in jail since 08.01.2022. Offence is triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class, conclusion of trial may take some time. Hence, applicant may be released on bail.

¶16

Learned State Counsel opposes submissions of learned counsel for applicant and submits that during search 26.44 bulk litres of handmade mahua liquor was seized from residential accommodation of applicant, hence, there is prima facie involvement of applicant in commission of crime. He is not entitle for grant of regular bail. However on asking to State Counsel about criminal antecedent of applicant, after going through case diary, he submits that applicant is a habitual offender, in case diary two antecedents are mentioned against him of the year 2018 & 2021. He does not dispute submission of counsel for applicant based on Annexure A-3 of examination of seizure witnesses and stated that it is to be appreciated by trial Court.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

Considering entire facts and circumstances of case, nature of allegations, submission of counsel for applicant that seizure witnesses have not supported case of prosecution in their Court statement, period of detention of applicant since 08.01.2022, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this application.

¶19

Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that applicant shall be released on regular bail, on his furnishing a bail bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to satisfaction of Court on the conditions that-

¶20

a) Applicant shall appear before Trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance.

¶21

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

¶22

c) If applicant is found involved in similar offence in the future, it will be open for the State to apply for cancellation of Bail. Certified copy as per rules.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶25

Jamal/-

Chandrapratap Porte v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrapratap Porte 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

Devichand Rathi Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Vikrant Ban Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Feku Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Digma Sharnarthi Prathmik Shala Digma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Munnalal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lohar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh