Raja Ram Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27466 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-69 Year-2024 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Samastipur ====================================================== Raja Ram Mahto S/O Late Siya Sharan Mahto R/O Village- Kamopur, P.SKhanpura, Distt.- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mahendra Pratap, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kanhiya Kishor, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-04-2024 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 offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the Bihar Excise Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 860 litres of spirit from the hut of the petitioner. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and even alleged recovery is not from a hut but from a house but the house is a joint family property as such it cannot be alleged with certainty that it was petitioner who had kept the liquor in the house or the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27466 of 2024(2) dt.10-04-2024 2/3 liquor kept in the house within knowledge of the petitioner. It is also submitted that after the 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 he came to be implicated by the local people but then the FIR does not disclose the name of the person who disclosed the name of the petitioner, which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when petitioner admittedly is a person with clean antecedent. 5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6.

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 trial court 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 trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Samastipur Sadar Excise P.S. Case No. 69 of 2024 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

7.

It is made clear that the learned trial court before accepting the bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the event if it is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27466 of 2024(2) dt.10-04-2024 3/3 found that the petitioner has antecedent of even one case, in that event the present anticipatory bail order shall not be given effect.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) SUMIT/- U T