[2025:RJ-JP:35689] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11177/2025 Radhey Shyam Yadav S/o Shri Kanaram Yadav, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Simaliya Vatika Thana Shivdaspura District Jaipur South (Rajasthan) (At Present Accused Confined In Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dushyant Singh Naruka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 04/09/2025 1. Instant application for bail is filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the petitioner-accused Radhey Shyam Yadav S/o Shri Kanaram Yadav in FIR No. 640/2025 dated 19.08.2025 registered at P.S. Sanganer Sadar, District – Jaipur City (South), whereby the petitioner-accused has charged under Sections 19/54 Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. 2. The petitioner was arrested and is in judicial custody since his arrest. The Court below has dismissed the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon grounds raised in bail application submits that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel while referring the police report has submitted that not a single material is collected on record to show that the [2025:RJ-JP:35689] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11177/2025] present petitioner accused was in possession of the premises as an occupier from where alleged excise articles were recovered. He further submitted that around 110 litters liquor and 90 litters beer were seized by police. He further submitted that there is no criminal antecedents against the petitioner for involvement in any criminal activity. He further submitted that neither the document executed by landlord nor a rent note is filed on record to show that the present petitioner is an occupier or tenant on the shop where search activity was conducted by the police. He further referred judgment in case of Mohanlal Teli Vs. State of Rajasthan : 2018 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 95 and submitted that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while considering Section 49 of the Rajasthan Excise Act held that a court can grant a bail to a person from whom more than 50 litters of liquor is recovered. He also submitted that the trial will take time and no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner-accused in custody. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted report received from PS Sanganer, District Jaipur (South). 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 6. On basis of an information Jagdish Prasad, ASI, has conducted search with police party and found that the present petitioner accused was in possession of huge quantity of English liquor and beer and stored in a shop for sale. It was found that 564 quarters and 24 half of different [2025:RJ-JP:35689] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-11177/2025] brands of liquor and 97 bottles of beer and 49 cans were in possession of present petitioner accused who stored them to sell. The police has asked for license but no license was produced by present petitioner accused. Ultimately, after seizure of aforesaid liquor, a case has been registered. As per police more than 110 litters of liquor and 90 litters of beer were found in possession of present petitioner accused. The present petitioner accused is arrested on 19.08.2025 and he is in custody but there is no criminal antecedents against the petitioner accused. 7. In case of Mohanlal Teli Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) after considering provision of Section 49(3)(b) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, the bail was dismissed on the ground that the accused was already convicted under the Excise Act. Section 49(3) begins with a non obstante clause and it stipulate that after opportunity of hearing to public prosecutor, the Court has to record its satisfaction. 8. Here in this case, there is no criminal antecedents against the petitioner accused and moreover no record is placed to show occupation of shop by the petitioner accused. The offence is triable by Magistrate and still material on record is only sufficient to forward petitioner accused for trial. 9. Upon hearing the arguments and perusing the record, we have found that the petitioner-accused is no more required in the investigation and he is in custody for quite some time. The further proceedings will take its own time, therefore, looking to entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, [2025:RJ-JP:35689] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-11177/2025] the Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner-accused. 10. Thus, the instant bail application filed on behalf of petitioner- accused is hereby allowed and the petitioner-accused Radhey Shyam Yadav S/o Shri Kanaram Yadav is ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner. (ii) The petitioner-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law. (iii) The petitioner-accused shall attend the hearing of the Trial Court on the date fixed by the Trial court or as and when asked to appear before the Trial Court. (iv) In case of any violation of above conditions, the bail granted to the petitioner-accused shall be liable to be cancelled. 11. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court through E-mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/183