80-liters liquor BAIL WITHOUT LAWFUL JUSTIFICATION

IN THE COURT OF (Name Of The Judge), JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE IST CLASS, XYZ

          Shaka (PETITIONER)            VERSUS              The State.

                    Case FIR No.No./yyyy.

                   U/S: 3/4/4, PEHO, 1979.

                   Police Station: ABC XYZ

                   POST ARREST BAIL PETITION

ORDER.

Present:       Learned ADPP for the state.

                   Learned counsel for the petitioner,  Name Advocate.

1.                My this order is meant to dispose off the above captioned, first post arrest bail petition, (as per annexed certificate) filed by the accused person/petitioner in the titled case through his counsel.

2.                 Briefly stated prosecution story is that the accused person/petitioner was apprehended by the police while transporting the liquor for the purposes of sale and 80-liters liquor was recovered, from his possession, as detailed in FIR, hence, this case.

3.                 Learned counsel for the accused person/petitioner argued that petitioner is in judicial lock up and he is no more required for investigation; he is non-convict and non-record holder; allegation against him is baseless. False case has been got registered against him by the police. No independent person of the locality was associated in the recovery proceedings. There is no direct evidence of sale against the petitioner/accused person. The alleged offences do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. Hence, he be released on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused person has relied on 2000 P Cr.L.J 533, 1996 P Cr.L.J 1856, 1988 P Cr.L.J 1947, 2002 P Cr.L.J 949, 1988 P Cr.L.J 2069, 1990 P Cr.L.J 1175, 1987 P Cr.L.J 1410, 1996 P Cr.L.J 392, 1999 P Cr.L.J 1595, 1996 P Cr.L.J 651, 1999 P Cr.L.J 558 & 1996 P Cr.L.J 1787.

4.                 Learned ADPP vehemently opposed the bail petition in hand and prayed for its dismissal.

5.                 Arguments heard.  Record perused.

6.                 The petitioner/accused person is specifically nominated in the promptly lodged FIR. As per story of FIR, the accused person was transporting the liquor for the purposes of sale and on raid a huge quantity of liquor i.e. 80-liters was recovered from his possession without any legal justification. Such like offence should be discouraged in any prosper society. Prosecution witnesses have also associated the petitioner/accused person with the alleged offences in their statements, recorded during the course of investigation. The case law referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused person does not fully apply to the above captioned case. Moreover, it has been opined by the Hon’ble Superior Courts that the accused person/persons cannot claim bail, as a matter of right in the offences which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. In the light of aforesaid, I am not inclined to grant the concession of bail to the accused person/petitioner. Hence, petition in hand is dismissed. However, these observations are of tentative nature which shall not prejudice the disposal of the case on merits.

                                                                       

Announced.                                                           Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,

dd-mm-yy