Gautam Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25666 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-388 Year-2022 Thana- KUSHESHWARASTHAN DistrictDarbhanga ====================================================== Gautam Kumar, Son of Singheshwar Modi @ Singheshar Modi Resident of Village - Guntudi Kharikabad, P.S.- Kusunda (Kasunda), Taluka - Baliapur, District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Nawal Kishor Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 18-05-2023 Heard Ld. counsel for the petitioner and Ld. APP for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kusheshwarasthan P. S. Case No. 388 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 272, 273, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 30(a), 32, 36 and 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
As per allegation, 450.750 litres of liquor was recovered from a pick-up van.
Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
2/4 case. He further submits that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner is the driver of the said vehicle and he was not aware of the contents of the material loaded in the vehicle. He further submits that search and seizure has not been made as per the procedure as prescribed under Cr.P.C.
He further submits that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 14.11.2022.
It has also been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has earlier been made accused in one criminal antecedents, in which he is on bail. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier either for anticipatory bail or regular one.
However, Ld. APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this application is allowed, directing the petitioner, abovenamed, to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in
3/4 the sum of Rs. 10,000 /- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Ld. Special Judge, Excise-II, Darbhanga, in connection with Kusheshwarasthan P. S. Case No. 388 of 2022, on the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner will make himself available for interrogation by a police officer/court as and when required. (ii) The petitioner will undertake that investigation/trial will not get hampered on account of his absence or non-cooperation. He must be available to the police or the court whenever his presence is required. (iii) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.
(iv) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that the petitioner has criminal antecedents other than the disclosed one, Ld. court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner after hearing him and getting satisfied that
4/4 the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents despite his knowledge of the same.
(v) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong, Ld. court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(vi) In case, the petitioner repeats offence of similar nature after enlargement on bail, his bail-bond will be cancelled by the court below.
Ld. counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects, if any, pointed out by the office within a period of one month and the Registry is directed to issue the certified copy of this order only after removal of office objections.
(Jitendra Kumar, J) skm/- U T