mam, Wm,W v mcmwomgagm 200 W m (W) WWW m mm am WWW %€IW ‘ % 31W?m g V t/ AP‘Di sCANT- - Versus NON APPLICANT' {Application under Section $ingie Bench: Hon’ble 28-3—2008'- ML P. Diwakar. Sr. Advocate appiicant. Mr. Manish Sharma, Coursei Heard. This applicatiort has been 5,1 .2007 passed by this Court condition that the appiicant permission of the Court. Learned counsei for the a order regarding vioiation of the before appeiiate authority, that has been filed against the appiirmnt, aforesaid condition may be deiet Sanjeev Jain S/o Late BR. Jam aged about :42 yeam, R/o 74/4: Nehru Nagar (East), Bhilai, DEStrict—Durg (C.G.) - Union of !ndia. through the Centra} Excise Department DN‘ssicn-H Near Raipur N'aka’, Opp: 3i Bungaiow, Bhiiai, District Durg (CG} 439 of Code of Criminai Procedure) My. Justice L.Ci Bhadoo with Mr. Adi! Minhaj, Advocate for the forthe Union of india. moved for modification of the order dated in M.Cr.C. No.3929l2006 for deleting the should not leave the country without prior oplicant submits that against the so calied Excise Act, the applicant moved an appeai 1as been aiiowed and so far, no chaiian therefore, in the circumstances, the ad. i i t Wm 1H 200 m mw,m, 3mm (W) maia‘am mm WmR éasrranm w 1’ Ba§l was granted to the a piicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. after his arrest for the commission of he offence under Section 9 of the Central Exmse Act 1944 therefore, thl condition cannot be modifed However the aoohcant shall be at ttberty o raise this around before the tna! Court rot gavmg hum permrssron to ieav the country. in View of the above‘ the .ase is disposed of .c “ADO 3ud9e