Rajiv Ram @ Rajgir Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23349 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-308 Year-2022 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran ====================================================== Rajiv Ram @ Rajgir Ram son of Late Dukhit Ram Resident of Village - Mubarakpur P.S. - Garkha, Dist- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Vijay Kumar Srivastva, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms. Pushpa Sinha, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 02-04-2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent.
4. Allegation is of recovery of 45 litres of liquor out of which 15 litres is alleged to have been recovered from the house of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and after amendment in the Excise Act in the year 2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away with. It is further submitted that the house in question is a joint family property as such it cannot
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23349 of 2024(2) dt.02-04-2024 2/2 be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioner who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within the knowledge of the petitioner. It is next submitted that petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of the Chawkidar. It is also submitted that if the Chawkidar was aware of the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence then whey he did not inform the police prior to the institution of the instant FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
7. 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.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Garkha P.S. Case No. 308 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T