Lal Babu Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26454 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-136 Year-2020 Thana- SONBERSA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== LAL BABU MAHTO SON OF LATE RAM NARESH MAHTO R/O- ATDOSTIYA TOLA , POST- DOSTIYA TOLA (ARARIA), P.S.- SONBARSA, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sita Ram Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 29-07-2022 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State through virtual Court proceedings.

Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of four weeks from today.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 136 of 2020 registered for the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018.

The accused/petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is in custody since 01.04.2022.

The allegation against the petitioner is to be engaged in illegal trade of illicit liquor, where, there is recovery of 568.5

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26454 of 2022(2) dt.29-07-2022 2/3 litres of illicit Nepali Saufi liquor.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that recovery has not been made from possession of the petitioner, where, name of the petitioner surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused. While concluding the argument, it is also submitted that investigation of this case has been completed, for which, charge-sheet has already been submitted, as such, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

Learned APP, while opposing the prayer of bail, fairly conceded the fact that recovery has not been made from physical possession of the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, as the alleged recovery has not been made from the conscious physical possession of the petitioner coupled with the fact that charge-sheet has already been submitted, let the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail in connection with Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 136 of 2020 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge Exclusive Special Excise Court No.1, Sitamarhi/concerned court, subject to the following conditions:

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26454 of 2022(2) dt.29-07-2022 3/3 "(i)That petitioner shall not involve in the similar nature of offence till the conclusion of trial, failing which, the State shall be at liberty to move before the Trial Court itself for the cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner.

(ii) Accused/Petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and shall be physically present on each and every date before the Trial Court till conclusion of the trial and exemption from physical appearance be allowed by the Trial Court, only on medical ground of the petitioner duly supported by the documents.

(iii) That one of the bailors shall be Kamini Devi, who is the wife of the petitioner and deponent of the present bail petition."

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) S.Katyayan/- U T