Patna High CourtCR. MISC./15180/2025bail granted

Sujit Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

2025-04-10Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15180 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-760 Year-2024 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Sujit Paswan Son of Tuntun Paswan Resident of Village- Amghatta, ward No. 35, P.s.- Sitamarhi, Distt.- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-04-2025 Heard Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest connection with Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 760 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 07.11.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2022.

3. Recovery is of 215.100 liters of Nepali liquor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that as per allegation in the F.I.R., 113.100 lirres of

2/4 Nepali liquor was recovered from a Car in question and 102.00 litres of Nepali liquor was recovered from a ditch. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is not the owner of the Car in question and he has no concern at all with the alleged recovery of illicit liquor and he has been made accused due to village politics. Therefore, the recovery cannot be attributed to the petitioner. 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 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 prearrest bail would not be maintainable. He further submits that the petitioner carries one more case other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail petition that the petitioner is on bail in the pending matter.

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.LJ.R. 1089. Having regard to the law laid

3/4 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 nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, 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 Special Judge, Exclusive Excise Court No. 2, Sitamarhi in connection with Sitamarhi PS. Case No. 760 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 and with other following conditions:-

1. 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.

2. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the

4/4 witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

3. 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 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) Ibrar//- U