BHIMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Prosecution case is that upon receipt of information, the Assistant Excise Officer with his team raided the premises which is alleged to be belonging to the present applicant and it is alleged that from the premises, 27.360 bulk litre of Goa made whisky was seized.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is a respectable inhabitant and businessman in his area and allegation was made to falsely implicate. He would submit that false proceedings have been drawn which is manifest from the fact that in various documents initially a signature of the name 'Bhima' was taken and then it was erased with whitener. He would further submit that the seizure of liquor has been made from a house but the applicant has nothing to do with this house because he is neither occupant nor owner of the premises and it is being falsely stated without any material that it belongs to the present applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant but on the other hand, it is a case of false implication, therefore, the applicant may be protected by grant of anticipatory bail notwithstanding the bar under Section 59-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 (for short 'the Act of 1915') in view of the decisions in the cases of Lakhan Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2007 (1) CGLJ 8 and Gyanchand Jain Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2016(2) CGLJ 295.