Ram Vinay Singh @ Vinay Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26493 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2025 Thana- PATAHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== Ram Vinay Singh @ Vinay Singh S/o RAJENDER SINGH R/o Vill- Sakhi Bhakurahiya, P.S.- Patahi, Dist-Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sarvesh Kashyap, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-07-2025 Heard Mr. Sarvesh Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Patahi P.S. Case No. 37 of 2025, F.I.R dated 24.01.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 274, 275 of the BNS and Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. Recovery is of 104.40 liters of Nepali liquor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R and seizure list that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner rather the recovery has

2/4 been made from the bamboo orchard of one, Hakim Singh and petitioner has no concern at all with the alleged recovery. It is further submitted that name of the petitioner has been transpired on the basis of disclosure made by the local chowkidar and except the aforesaid, no other material has come during the investigation against the petitioner to suggest his involvement in the present occurrence. There is non-compliance with mandatory procedure prescribed for recovery under Section 100 of Cr.P.C / Section 103 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 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 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 the petitioner carries one criminal antecedent 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.L.J.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, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and name of the petitioner has been transpired on the basis of disclosure made by the local chowkidar, 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 the learned Exclusive Special Judge, Excise Court No. 3, Motihari, East Champaran in connection with Patahi P.S. Case No. 37 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 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

4/4 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 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) priyanka/- U T