CHANDA DEVI SAINI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with F.I.R. No.504/2021 registered at Police Station N.E.B. District Alwar for the offence(s) under Section(s) 19/54 of Rajashtan Excise Act, 1950.

(2.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the excise article was recovered from the house under tenancy of co-accused Vinay Kumar and the agreement dated 15.07.2021 submitted by the co-accused reflecting the termination of tenancy is a forged document. He submitted that while petitioner No.1 is a 61 years' old lady, petitioner No.2 happens to be a professor in an engineering college at Bhilwara. He submitted that on receiving telephonic information from the police, he himself went to the house which was searched in his presence after breaking the lock. He submitted that they have no criminal antecedents and prayed for release of the petitioners on pre-arrest bail.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the nature of allegation against them, material contained in the case diary especially the information furnished by co-accused Vinay Kumar Yadav under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 wherein he has disclosed the place from where he purchased the recovered article, his interrogation note and absence of criminal antecedents; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.