Arun Mahto @ Arun Kumar Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14448 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-310 Year-2021 Thana- MAHARAJGANJ District- Siwan ====================================================== ARUN MAHTO @ ARUN KUMAR CHOUDHARY SON OF SURESH MAHTO @ SURESH CHOUDHARY R/O - PURANI BAZAR MAHARAJGANJ, P.S.- MAHARAJGANJ, DISTRICT- SIWAN ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State through the virtual Court proceedings. Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of four weeks.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 272, 273 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent. Allegation is of total recovery of 260 litres of liquor out of which 20 litre is alleged to have been recovered from the house of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14448 of 2022(2) dt.15-07-2022 2/3 petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession. It is further asserted and stated that no raid or search was made in the house of the petitioner and he stayed in the house with his wife, children, mother and father and had a raid is conducted then definitely the police would have obtained the signature of the family members as a witness on the seizure list but the seizure list does not contain the signature as a witness of any of the family members of the petitioner. Learned counsel next submits that the police very wisely in order to implicate the petitioner has recorded that no local people were ready to become a witness on the seizure but the FIR does not even remotely disclose the name of the persons who was there at the place of occurrence when the seizure was made.
Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14448 of 2022(2) dt.15-07-2022 3/3 satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Maharajganj P.S. Case No. 310 of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T