Nem Lal Mahato v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9073 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-782 Year-2024 Thana- ARA NAGAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Nem Lal Mahato Son of Suretha Mahato Resident of Village - Ibrahimnagar, P.S. - Ara Town, District - Bhojpur (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Akash Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Gulnar Begum, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-03-2025 Heard Mr. Akash Kumar Mishra, 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 Ara Town P.S. Case No. 782 of 2024, F.I.R dated 02.12.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. Recovery is of 375 ML of foreign liquor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that as per the allegation in the FIR total 375 ml of foreign liquor was recovered from the house of the petitioner. He further submits that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession

2/4 of the petitioner. He further submits that although the recovery have been made from the house of the petitioner but the petitioner is not the absolute owner of the house in question. There is non-compliance with mandatory procedure prescribed for recovery under Section 100 of Cr.P.C./ Section 103 of B.N.S.S., 2023. No case, whatsoever, would be made out against the petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

5. 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.

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 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 that the petitioner

3/4 has clean antecedent, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and he is not the absolute owner of the house in question, 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/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Excise Court No.1, Bhojpur, Ara in connection with Ara Town P.S. Case No. 782 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/ Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and with other following conditions:- i.

Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his 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

4/4 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 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) ajay/- U T