Vijay Yadav @ Vijay Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8671 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2024 Thana- NAUHATTA District- Saharsa ====================================================== Vijay Yadav @ Vijay Kumar Yadav S/o Vino Yadav, Resident of VillageSatour, Ward no. 09, P.S- Nauhatta (Darahar O.P.), District- Saharsa, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhubneshwar Mahto, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Nazir Ansari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 14-02-2025 Heard Mr. Bhubneshwar Mahto, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Md. Nazir Ansari, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Nauhatta PS Case No. 14 of 2024, FIR dated 13.02.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. 3.

Recovery is of 170 litres of cough syrup.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that according to the FIR and seizure list, nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, rather the recovery has been made from the house of one Chitradeo Yadav and name of petitioner transpired on the

2/4 basis of disclosure made by local chowkidar. He further submits that the co-accused persons namely, Deepak Yadav and Kewal Yadav have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 68736 of 2024. 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 petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

5.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory 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. He further submits that petitioner is named in the FIR, apart from that, petitioner carries two criminal antecedents other than the present, however, he fairly submits that petitioner is on bail in the pending matters.

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) P.L.J.R. 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 and circumstances and mainly the facts that nothing has been recovered from conscious possession or house of the petitioner and similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, let the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Judge, Excise-II, Saharsa, where the case is pending in connection with Nauhatta PS Case No. 14 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

/ Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and also the following conditions:- (i).

4/4 be cancelled by the learned trial Court.

(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 learned trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the learned trial Court shall take steps 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) Shahnawaz/- U T