Citation : 2006 Local Law (CG) 322
A trial court has granted anticipatory bail to a man accused in an excise case after finding that the core facts relied on by the prosecution do not, at first glance, tie him to the seized liquor. The decision turns on the contents of the seizure memo and whether the statutory bar on anticipatory bail for large liquor seizures applies.
The case arose after police recovered 27 bulk litres of desi masala liquor, valued at roughly Rs. 6,000, from the house of a co-accused, Raju Pandit, late in the evening on July 4, 2005. The seizure memo, the court noted, records the recovery from Pandit’s house and records that Pandit fled the scene. The applicant’s name does not appear in the seizure memo. It first shows up in a later statement of one of the panch witnesses, where the court observed the entry appears as an added line and was followed by a supplementary statement taken on September 20, 2005.
The State argued the application for anticipatory bail was not maintainable because Section 59A(i) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act removes the court’s power to entertain anticipatory bail when the quantity seized exceeds 25 bulk litres. That provision specifically targets offences under Section 34 involving manufacture, transport, possession or sale, and aims to prevent pre-trial release in more serious excise violations.
The court, however, followed well understood legal principles: statutory bars to anticipatory bail do not operate if, on a prima facie reading of the record, the basic ingredients of the disqualifying offence are not made out against the accused. Citing similar reasoning applied by higher courts, the judge accepted the applicant’s position that the seizure was from Pandit’s possession and that there was no clear contemporaneous evidence linking the seized liquor to the applicant. The court said it was open to an accused to demonstrate, by reference to the record, that the offence attracting the Section 59A(i) bar is factually absent.
After weighing these points, the court allowed the anticipatory bail petition. The applicant was ordered to be released if arrested on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in an equal amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. Following the Supreme Court’s guidance in Salauddin Abdul Samad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, the order was directed to remain in force for 60 days, during which the applicant may seek regular bail from the appropriate trial court.
The ruling illustrates two practical lessons. First, technical labels in an FIR or charge sheet do not automatically oust judicial discretion where the material on record does not support the statutory bar to anticipatory bail. Second, contemporaneous documents such as seizure memos and original panchanama carry heavy weight. If an accused’s name is absent from primary documents and is later added only through supplementary statements, that can materially affect the anticipatory bail analysis.
This case will be of interest to defence counsel and practitioners handling excise matters because it reinforces that courts will look past statutory prohibitions when the facts fail to satisfy the foundational elements of the disqualifying offence. For prosecutors, it is a reminder to ensure primary seizure and investigation records are clear as to possession and ownership at the time of detection.
Case Details : M.Cr.C. No. 2011 of 2006, Lakhan Sahu vs. State of C.G. (15.09.2006)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Awadh Tripathi, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Sushil Dubey, Govt. Adv.
Relevant Section:
CHHATTISGARH EXCISE ACT, 1915 – Section 59A(i)
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 – Section 34, Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 – Section 34 (2), Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 – Section 38, Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 – Section 49A, Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 – Section 59A, Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 – Section 59A (i); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 438; Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 18
Cases Referred:
Naresh Kumar Lahria v. State of M.P. and Ors. 2004 (4) MPHT 205; Salauddin Abdul Samad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 1 SCC 667
======
आबकारी – अग्रिम जमानत – दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता की धारा 438 – छत्तीसगढ़ आबकारी अधिनियम, 1915 की धारा 34(2) के अंतर्गत दंडनीय अपराध
निर्णय – जब्तीनामा (Seizure Memo) का अवलोकन करने पर यह स्पष्ट होता है कि जब्ती आवेदक के कब्जे से नहीं की गई थी, न ही वह मकान जहाँ से जब्ती की गई, आवेदक के स्वामित्व या कब्जे में था। साक्ष्यों से यह स्पष्ट है कि वह मकान अभियुक्त राजू पंडित का था और जब्ती भी उसी के कब्जे से की गई थी। जब्त की गई 27 बल्क लीटर देशी मसाला शराब का आवेदक से कोई प्रत्यक्ष संबंध प्रारंभिक दृष्टि से सिद्ध नहीं हुआ है।
ऐसी स्थिति में यह याचिका विचारणीय है तथा आबकारी अधिनियम की धारा 59-ए (i) के अंतर्गत अग्रिम जमानत पर रोक इस प्रकरण में लागू नहीं होगी। प्रकरण के विशिष्ट तथ्यों और परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए, आवेदक को दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता की धारा 438 का लाभ दिया जाना उचित है।
अतः, याचिका स्वीकार की जाती है और यह आदेश दिया जाता है कि यदि आवेदक को गिरफ्तार किया जाता है, तो उसे 10,000 रुपये के निजी मुचलके और समान राशि के एक जमानती मुचलके पर रिहा किया जाएगा। यह अग्रिम जमानत आदेश 60 दिनों तक प्रभावी रहेगा, जिसके भीतर आवेदक नियमित जमानत के लिए सक्षम न्यायालय से संपर्क कर सकता है।
निष्कर्ष: आवेदक के विरुद्ध जब्ती या स्वामित्व का कोई प्रत्यक्ष प्रमाण न होने के कारण, अग्रिम जमानत याचिका स्वीकार की गई।
