DEENDAYAL RAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard with the aid of case diary. This is first bail application filed under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant in connection with FIR/Crime No.238/2024 Date:-6/4/2024 registered at P.S.-Kukshi District-Dhar (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Ss. 34 (2) and 42 of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915.

(2.) Prosecution story in short is that, on 6/4/2024 co-accused Rajendra @ Rohit Verma was found transporting 516 bulk liters of liquor without having any license or authority. Police had seized the aforesaid liquor and vehicle from the possession of co-accused Rajendra @ Rohit Verma and accordingly crime was registered against him. During investigation, it was revealed that present applicant Deendayal Rai had supplied the aforesaid liqour to the co-accused Rajendra @ Rohit Verma.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the applicant has not committed the offence and has falsely been implicated in the case only on the basis of memorandum statement given by co-accused Rajendra @ Rohit Verma. No liquor was seized from the possession of the present applicant. There is no legal evidence available against the applicant. It is submitted that one case under Sec. 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act is also registered against the applicant in May, 2024, but he has also been implicated in the aforesaid case only on the basis of memo recorded under Sec. 27 of Evidence Act, by concerning co-accused persons. It is also submitted that applicant is a reputed person and police is trying to arrest him if he is arrested then his reputation will be tarnished therefore, it is prayed that applicant be granted anticipatory bail.