Dismissed¶20

Sanni Nandwani v. State of Chhattisgarh

Anticipatory bail – Application under Section 438 CrPC rejected

Chhattisgarh HC18 Apr 2024MCRCA/231/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MCRCA No. 231 of 2024, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, decided 19.4.2024 by Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J.: first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC rejected in Crime No.1542/2023 (P.S. Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur (CG)), offence under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915; 6.300 bulk liters of country made liquor allegedly seized from exclusive possession of the applicant; criminal antecedents under excise and gambling enactments cited.

What did the court decide?

The Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, particularly because the alleged country made liquor had been seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant and considering his criminal antecedents. ¶20

Sanni Nandwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Anticipatory Bail | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No. 231 of 2024

¶5

Sanni Nandwani S/o Late Ashok Kumar Nandwani Aged About 35 Years R/o Near Sakti Bakery, Godpara, Police Station- City Kotwali, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Thrugh Station House Officer, Police Station- Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Applicant : Shri Sudhir Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board

¶12

19.4.2024.

¶13

The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 438 of the CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail, as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.1542/2023, registered at Police Station – Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

¶14

Facts of the case in brief are that, on the basis of secret information received by police of Police Station Sarkanda, they caught applicant and allegedly seized 6.300 bulk liters of country made liquor from his illicit possession. Based on the above facts, present offence has been registered against the applicant.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that alleged liquor has not been seized from exclusive possession of the applicant and the case is triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class, hence, benefit of anticipatory bail may be granted to the applicant.

¶16

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that aforesaid quantity of liquor has been seized from the exclusive possession of the applicant as he was carrying

¶17

¶18

the same in a black colour bag. She would further submit that as per case diary, there are four criminal antecedents reported against present applicant in Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur, i.e. Crime No.59/2024 for the offence under Section 34(1) CG Excise Act; Crime No.357/2021 for the Offence under Section 3 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 and Crime No.358/2023 for the Offence under Section 3(2) of the Chhattisgarh Gambling Prohibition Act, 2022. Further, provisions of anticipatory bail is not applicable in the cases related to Excise Act, therefore, considering the criminal antecedent of the applicant, he is not entitled for grant of benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary and material available on record.

¶20

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the fact that alleged country made liquor has been seized from exclusive possession of the applicant and also considering his criminal antecedents, I do not feel inclined to allow the bail application. Accordingly, bail application filed under Sections 438 CrPC is hereby rejected.

¶21

Certified copy as per rules.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE

¶24

Bini

Sanni Nandwani v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanni Nandwani v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Parik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sushil Kumar Lodhi Vs Tekchand Lodhi

Rajkumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kavita Acharya Vs Prashant Acharya

Ajju Kumar Bareth Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Dileep Korram Vs State of Chhattisgarh