Patna High CourtCR. MISC./5248/2025bail granted

Krishna Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2025-02-15Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5248 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-790 Year-2024 Thana- SIWAN MUFFASIL District- Siwan ====================================================== Krishna Sah S/O Shyamlal Sah Resident Of Village - Pakri Bangali, P.SMahadewa O.P, Dist- Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Gulnar Begum, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-02-2025 Heard Mr.Ajay Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Gulnar Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Siwan Muffasil P.S.Case No.790 of 2024,FIR dated 07.12.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, Amended 2022.

3. Recovery is of 3.6 liters of illicit liquor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion. Further submits that it appears from the FIR as well as seizure list that nothing has been recovered from conscious possession

2/4 or the house of the petitioner rather the recovery has been made in front of the house of the petitioner and petitioner has been made accused in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion and except the aforesaid, no other material has come during investigation against the petitioner to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence and local Chaukidar has also disclosed the name of the petitioner and stated that the petitioner has fled away from the place of occurrence. There is non-compliance with mandatory procedure prescribed for recovery under Section 100 of Cr.P.C./Section 103 of BNSS, 2023. No case, whatsoever, would be made out against the petitioners under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner referring the provision contained in Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submitted that the pre-arrest bail would not be maintainable.

6. This Court is aware of the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2019 (2) PLJR 1089. Having regard to the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission advanced on

3/4 behalf of the parties, this Court for the limited purpose of grant of anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of Counsel for the petitioner.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts, petitioner has clean antecedent, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession or the house of the petitioner and name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation on the basis of the disclosure made by local Chaukidar, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000 (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge, Excise Court No.-II, Siwan in connection with Siwan Muffasil P.S.Case No.

4/4 reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. (II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(III) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his/her criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U T