SANDEEP RAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in relation to Crime No.820/2023, registered at Police Station- Industrial Area Dewas, District Dewas for the offence under Sec. 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915.

(2.) As per prosecution story, a truck bearing registration no.MP 09 GG 149 intercepted, from which 5759 quarters (2169 bulk liters) of foreign liquor was seized from possession of the applicant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further contended that the applicant has been made accused in the present case only on the basis of Statements co-accused recorded under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act, there is no sufficient evidence against the applicant to connect him with the offence. 5759 quarters (2169 bulk liters) of foreign liquor was recovered from the truck and two accused persons Kanu and Sunil were arrested and in the statement recorded under Sec. 27 of Evidence Act, they deposed that the present applicant loaded the illicit liquor in the vehicle. The applicant was working in a particular liquor shop and loaded the alleged liquor in the vehicle. However, as per the information obtained from RTI, District Excise Officer has stated that the batch number of the liquor said to be seized from the truck was not allotted to the liquor shop in which the present applicant was working. Even if the allegation of prosecution are taken to be true at their face value and accepted in their entirety except memo under Sec. 27 of Evidence Act, there is nothing on record to connect the present applicant in the present crime.