JAI PAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, a prayer has been made for release of the petitioner on bail, in case F.I.R. No. 33 of 2021, dtd. 11/4/2021, registered against him at Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P., under Sec. 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Ss. 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 39 (1) (A) of the H.P. Excise Act, 2011.

(2.) As per the prosecution, a police party headed by Inspector Daya Ram, SHO Police Staiton Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. left for routine excise duty and patrolling, on 10/4/2021, towards Parwanoo- Kasauli Road, accompanied by other police officials. At around 1:30 a.m., while patrolling near Microtac Factory, at a Railway Crossing, they received a secret and reliable information that huge quantity of country liquor was being illegally transported in a Truck bearing registration No. HP 64A-3007, from KM Distillery Private Limited, Plot No.25, Sector-5, Parwanoo, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. On the basis of this information, the police party intercepted the truck in issue. The same was loaded with 750 boxes of country liquor ‘Himachal Orange'. Each box was containing 12 glass bottles of 750 ml. each. As the driver and the conductor of the truck could not produce relevant documents/ permit etc. with regard to transportation of the country liquor, it was apprehended that the liquor was being transported illegally in violation of the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, which led to the registration of the FIR in issue. The police also found that holograms affixed on the country liquor bottles were issued fraudulently by the present petitioner. It is on these basis, the petitioner was arrested on 11/4/2021 and he is still stated to be in custody.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and is not guilty of the offences alleged against him. He has further submitted that since 14/4/2021, the petitioner is in judicial custody, which implies that no recovery etc. is to be affected from him. He has further submitted that the investigation carried out otherwise also does not points out involvement of the petitioner qua the offences alleged to have been committed by him. He further submitted that the petitioner is a responsible public servant with no previous criminal history and in these circumstances, no fruitful purpose is going to be solved by keeping him in custody and he be released on bail on such conditions as the Court deems fit.