Dismissed

Vijay Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Feb 2023CRLMB/518/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur rejected the petitioner's criminal miscellaneous bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Court held that Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Rajasthan Excise Act imposes an absolute prohibition against granting anticipatory bail for offences punishable under Sections 19 and 54 of the Act.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was rejected due to statutory prohibition under Section 49(2) of the Rajasthan Excise Act.

Vijay Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/005160]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 518/2023

¶4

Vijay Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 44 Years, B/c Rajput, Occupation Business , R/o Jhadoli, Police Station Pindwara, District Sirohi.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. JVS Deora
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S. K. Bhati,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

13/02/2023

¶13

The present criminal misc. bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 03.01.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pindwada in criminal misc. (bail) case No.03/2023 in relation to FIR No.33/2022-23 registered at Police Station Pindwada, District Sirohi under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 whereby learned trial court dismissed the bail application of the petitioner.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has no connection with the place from where the illegal liquor is said to have been recovered. It is submitted that the petitioner alongwith his father does not resides in the house in question. It is also submitted that the alleged illegal liquor has been recovered from the said house in his absence. Learned counsel submits that there is no requirement of the petitioner for

[2023/RJJD/005160]

[CRLMB-518/2023]

(2 of 3)

custodial interrogation. It is further submitted that the coaccused Bhanwar Lal has already been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court, therefore it is prayed that the petitioner may also granted anticipatory bail.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that as per Sub Section (2) of Section 49 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, it is clear that except for the offences punishable under Section 54 and 56 which shall be non bailable, all other offences under this Act shall be bailable within the meaning of the said code. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner absconded from the place of recovery and one more case under Section 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act is pending investigation against the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties and material available on record.

¶21

Sub-Section (2) of Section 49 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 is relevant for the purpose of the present case, which reads as under:

¶22

"(2) Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence punishable under the proviso to section 54, or under sections 54B, 54D or 56 of this Act."

¶23

Thus, as per Section 49(2), there is an absolute prohibition against grant of anticipatory bail in a case pertaining to the offences under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act.

[2023/RJJD/005160]

[CRLMB-518/2023]

(3 of 3)

The quantity of liquor recovered from the premises of the petitioner is significant. Not only this, but it is also an admitted fact that one more case is pending consideration against the petitioner under the provisions of Sections 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4201/2020 (Jai Prakash @ Jepi Vs. State) decided on 01.05.2020 while considering the provisions of Section 49 of the Act of 1950, has rejected the anticipatory bail with following observation.

¶28

“As per Section 49, there is an absolute prohibition against anticipatory bail in a case pertaining to the offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. The quantity of liqour recovered from the premises of the petitioner is significant.”

¶29

In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

¶30

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶31

65-nidhi/-

Vijay Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Goverdhan Lal and Ors. Vs Smt. Manju Devi and Ors.

Icici Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Rama Kishan and Ors.

Smt.Marium Begum Vs Raju and Ors.

Somaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Digamber Kupekar Vs State of Rajasthan

Parbat Singh Vs State of Rajasthan