HARJI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

(2.) Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The house from where recovery was made does not belong to the petitioner. The quantity of liquor is barely more than 50 bulk litres. Thus, he urges that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

(3.) Learned public prosecutor with reference to the case diary states that the house from where 52 litres of illicit hand made liquor was recovered is owned by the petitioner. As many as three previous cases for offence under the Excise Act have been registered against the petitioner till date between the years 2011 to 2014 and he has been convicted in all three of them. He thus, urges that the petitioner being a habitual offender is not entitled to be released on bail.