IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 912 of 2011. Date of decision : 21.11. 2011. ____________________________________________________________ Chandan …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Assistant Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 230/2011 dated 24.9.2011 registered at Police Station, Jawali under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated that he was illegally possessing liquor to the tune of 11250 ml. The petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence. The bail application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jawali and then by the Sessions Judge, kangra on 15.10.2011. __________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 3. The Sessions Judge has erred in dismissing the bail application of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner earlier was involved in 23 cases under Punjab Excise Act. The petitioner has been acquitted in 21 cases and two cases are pending. This indicates that the petitioner was falsely implicated in 21 cases. The investigation in the case is complete. The further custody of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 4. The status report has been filed in which it has been stated that on 24.9.2011 a secret information was received that petitioner had been operating working still in his field. On this, raid was conducted and it was found that petitioner in his field had been running a working still electrically operated. On the spot 15 bottles (11250 ml) of illicit liquor were found and taken into possession. The sampling and sealing was done on the spot and the petitioner was arrested on 24.9.2011. It has been stated that the petitioner in the past was involved in 23 cases under the Excise Act, he has been acquitted in 21 cases and two cases are still pending. The petitioner is a strong headed person and of quarrelsome nature. He is openly saying that he does not bother to remain in jail. The challan has been submitted in the Court on 2.11.2011 and now the case is fixed on 29.11.2011. The bail application of the petitioner has already been dismissed by the Sessions Judge. The prayer has been made for dismissing the bail application. 3 5. I have heard both the sides and perused the police file. The petitioner earlier was involved in 23 cases under the Excise Act, in 21 cases he has been acquitted but two cases are still pending. The present case is of working still. The allegations against the petitioner are that he was found operating working still with the help of electricity and at the time of raid 11250 ml illicit liquor was recovered from his possession. The Sessions Judge has recorded specific observations that it is not expedient in the interest of justice to release the petitioner at this stage. The petitioner if released on bail at this stage, then trial of two pending cases under Excise Act will be adversely affected. The release of the petitioner is not in the interest of State and general public. The aforesaid observations of the Sessions Judge are not without foundations. It appears the petitioner does not bother for law, in the past, 23 cases under the Excise Act were registered against him. It appears petitioner is habitual offender. In the present case he was found operating working still with the help of electricity. It is not in the interest of general public to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. The possibility cannot be ruled out that in case the petitioner is released on bail then he will commit similar offence again. In these circumstances petitioner is not entitled to the indulgence of bail. There is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 6. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail petition only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. November 21, 2011. (Kuldip Singh) (GR) Judge.