Chandan Kumar Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5974 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-306 Year-2019 Thana- PARWALPUR DistrictNalanda ====================================================== CHANDAN KUMAR PANDEY S/o Ramanand Pandey Resident of VillageJairampur, Teus, P.S.- Sheikhpura, Distt- Sheikhpura, Owner of Bolero Vehicle No. B R 27 E- 6927.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Chandra, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s:

Mr. Atul Chandra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 28-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 30(a), 37(2)(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018 (for short 'the Prohibition Act') registered in connection with Parwalpur P.S. Case No. 306 of 2019.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated merely because he happens to be the owner of the seized Bolero from which 750 ml. of liquor was recovered. It is submitted that the petitioner is not alleged to have been present at the spot nor any recovery of liquor has been made from his conscious possession. There is no allegation whatsoever connecting the petitioner with the alleged goods. It is submitted that mere ownership of the vehicle does not constitute an offence under the Prohibition Act. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5974 of 2020(2) dt.28-02-2020 2/3

4. Ordinarily, an anticipatory bail petition in relation to the offence under the Prohibition Act is not maintainable. However, where, on the basis of the statements in the first information report, the ingredients of the offence alleged against a persons are not made out, as observed by a Division Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 21578 of 2017 (Manish Kumar @ Lokesh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar) and analogous cases, there would be no bar to the grant of anticipatory bail.

5. Learned APP has not pointed out any material in the F.I.R. alleging any offence to have been committed by the petitioner in order to attract the provisions of the said Prohibition Act.

6. Be that as it may, in the event of the petitioner's arrest or surrender before the court below within six weeks from the date of communication of this order, let the above named petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (Excise), Nalanda at Biharsharif in connection with Parwalpur P.S. Case No. 306 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C., and also subject to the following further conditions - (i) That one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) That the petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial.

(iii) That the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation, if not already concluded, and make himself available as and when so required and in case of failure, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. (iv) That the petitioner shall remain physically present in Court on each and every date during trial, and in the event of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5974 of 2020(2) dt.28-02-2020 3/3 failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned Court concerned.

(Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar//- U T