SUBHAM RAJBHAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ***

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged recovery of illicit liquor has been made from the house of the petitioner. There is no evidence to show the exclusive possession of petitioner over the house. The petitioner resides in the same house with his entire family comprising; parents, wife and children, therefore, alleged recovery cannot be attached exclusively with the petitioner and he cannot be punished for the same. Criminal record of the petitioner cannot be a ground for dismissal of the bail application. The petitioner is in custody since last two months, therefore, he be granted bail.

(3.) Further learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Thukchuk Lachungpa vs. State of Sikkim,2000 4 CCR 235 (SC), wherein it is held that, the argument that the petitioner was involved in number of criminal cases earlier is not enough to deny him bail because of reply that except one in all other cases he was acquitted or discharged.