Rahul Kumar Singh @ Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23830 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Supaul ====================================================== 1.
Rahul Kumar Singh @ Rahul Kumar S/o Yogendra Singh R/o VillageNarayanpur, Ward No.12, P.S.- Bhaptiyahi, Dist.- Supaul 2.
Bablu Singh @ Babul Singh S/o Jitendra Singh R/o Village- Narayanpur, Ward No.12, P.S.- Bhaptiyahi, Dist.- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Kumar Goutam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 05-05-2025 Heard Mr. Kumar Goutam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Excise P.S. Supaul Case No. 12 of 2025, F.I.R dated 10.01.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) and 37 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
3. Recovery is of 65.250 liters of foreign liquor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and fabricated. He further submits
2/4 that it appears from the F.I.R that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners rather the recovery has been made from Husk house of co-accused, namely, Pappu Yadav and their name transpired on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused person that petitioner no.2 supplied the illegal liquor and petitioner no.1 received the money for there transaction. 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 has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners 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 both the petitioners have one criminal antecedent other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail petition that both the petitioners are on bail in the pending matters.
6. This court is aware of the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar
3/4 reported in 2019(2) P.L.J.R. 1089. Having regard to the law laid 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 petitioners.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioners and the name of the petitioners transpired on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused person, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their 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) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge Excise Court No.2, Supaul in connection with Excise P.S. Supaul Case No. 12 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. Petitioners 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
4/4 court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioners tamper 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 petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bonds of the petitioners. 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) Suruchi/- U T