NOHAR DEVDAS Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant Cr. M.P., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.5.14 passed in Criminal Revision No. H-30/14 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Mahasamund has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. By way of the dismissal of the revision petition, the court below has confirmed the order dated 14.4.14 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund in Criminal Case No. 14/14 whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate has rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 432(6) Cr.P.C. Facts leading to the instant case are that the petitioner was charged for having committed an offence under Section 34(2) of Excise Act for being in possession of 5.4 liters of county made liquor at this house on 24.12.13. It is also evident from the record that the charge sheet was filed on 25.1.14 and subsequently the matter was fixed for evidence of the prosecution on 10.2.14. From 10.2.14 onwards, the matter has been adjourned till 28.4.14 for about 7 occasions. However, none of the prosecution witnesses could be brought by the prosecution to lead evidence and as such the petitioner is languishing in jail for no reason and the trial is being prolonged. Thereafter, the present petitioner has filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for grant of bail under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. which was rejected and subsequently, on a revision being filed, the same was also rejected and now the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging these two orders.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision rendered in the matter of Amar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2007 5 MPHT 118 wherein also the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the proceedings under the Excise Act on account of the delay in trial and on account of the failure on the part of the prosecution in recording the evidence within the stipulated period, had considered the case of the petitioner therein and granted bail. He further relied upon the decision rendered in the matter of Godwari Bai & Others Vs. State of C.G., 2004 2 CGLJ 135 wherein the offence punishable was under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC wherein also this Court in the said case, had on account of the delay on the part of the prosecution to conclude the trial within the stipulated period, had granted bail to the accused person.

(3.) Considering the two judgments referred to by counsel for the petitioner, the fact that the quantity of country made liquor which was seized from the possession of the present applicant was of 5.4 liters, that the prosecution has already been granted 7 occasions till 28.4.14 and the prosecution does not seem to be in a position to lead evidence and the petitioner is suffering for no fault upon him, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the instant Cr.M.P. is allowed. It is directed that in the event of the petitioner's executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, he shall be released on bail. He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.