PATIRAM DANSENA Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has preferred this application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 160/2005, registered in Police Station-Chowk Bhupdevpur, Kharsiya, Raigarh, for the offence punishable under Section 34(1)(A)(2) of the Excise Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been arrested in the aforesaid offence on the basis of the alleged recovery of 25 bulk liters of illicit liquors from the custody of the present applicant. He further submits that there is no evidence on record to show that the applicant was in exclusive possession of the seized contraband. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no any past criminal record. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application. However, learned counsel for the State does not dispute that the applicant does not have any criminal antecedent. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Taking into consideration the quantity of contraband and further considering the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedent, I am of the opinion that present is a fit case where the applicant should be extended the facility of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of applicant namely Patiram Dansena executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, with two sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, he shall be enlarged on bail. However, it is made clear that the applicant shall not repeat the offence in future, failing which the bail bond executed by him shall be liable for forfeiture without reference to this Court. Parties are entitled for certified copy of the order. Bail Granted.