TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Section 59-A(i) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, which bars anticipatory bail for specified excise offences, is unconstitutional as violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether, despite the statutory bar, the Court can consider an application for anticipatory bail where the basic ingredients of the specified offence are not made out.
Issue (i): Whether Section 59-A(i) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915, which bars anticipatory bail for specified excise offences, is unconstitutional as violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The provision was upheld on the footing that offences relating to unlawful liquor trade and spurious liquor form a distinct and special class, having regard to the harmful effects on public health, social order, and revenue. The restriction on anticipatory bail was held to be supported by legislative guidance, since it applies only to defined categories of offences and specified quantities, and therefore does not confer uncanalised or unbridled power. The Court further held that anticipatory bail is a statutory remedy and can be curtailed by law, and that the classification in the provision is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.
Conclusion: Section 59-A(i) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 is valid and not violative of Articles 14 or 21.
Issue (ii): Whether, despite the statutory bar, the Court can consider an application for anticipatory bail where the basic ingredients of the specified offence are not made out.
Analysis: The Court held that the statutory bar operates only where the case in substance falls within Section 59-A(i). If, on facts and supporting material, the accused shows that the offence is not ly covered by Section 49-A or Section 34(a) and (b) as specified, the Court is not precluded from examining the application. The nomenclature in the FIR is not conclusive, and the real substance of the allegations governs the applicability of the bar.
Conclusion: The Court may examine anticipatory bail only where the alleged facts do not truly attract Section 59-A(i); otherwise the statutory bar applies.
Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge failed, the statutory restriction on anticipatory bail was sustained, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory exclusion of anticipatory bail for a narrowly defined class of serious excise offences is constitutionally valid when the classification is rational and guided by the object of the law, but the bar applies only if the alleged facts ly bring the case within the specified offences.
TaxTMI 
