In MCRCA No.179 of 2023-CHH HC- Chhattisgarh HC grants anticipatory bail to Brick Kiln owner as he produced GST bill of seized coal 
Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey [15-02-2023]

Read Order: Akhil Upadhyay vs. State Of Chhattisgarh 

LE Correspondent

Bilaspur, February 21, 2023: In a case of seizure of three tonnes of the coal which was valued at Rs 30,000, the Chhattisgarh HC has granted bail to the owner of the Brick Kiln after considering the fact that the coal which was seized by the police, was purchased by him through a bill where he had paid GST also. 

The applicant had approached the Bench of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey by preferring an application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 379 of IPC and 41(4) of Cr.P.C.

It was the prosecution’s case that the police seized three tonnes of the coal, which was stored in a Bricks Factory and the cost of seized coal was about Rs 30,000. Consequently, FIR was registered against the present applicant for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and 41(4) of Cr.P.C.

The applicant had made a strong case that he could not produce the original bills at that time. Praying for the grant of bail, it was submitted by him that he has been running a Brick Kiln and the coal which was seized by the police, was purchased by him through a bill where he had paid GST also. 

“Considering the fact that the applicant is the owner of the Brick Kiln and he has produced GST bill of seized coal, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail by extending the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed”, the Bench held.

The Bench further directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs 50,000 to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting officer, he shall be released on bail, on the conditions that he would make himself available for interrogation by a police officer, he would not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court and he would not act in any manner which would be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.