Ram Pukar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30843 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2024 Thana- CHIRAIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Ram Pukar Yadav Ramadhar Yadav resident of village Katkauiya, P.S. - Chiraiya, Distt. - East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-04-2024

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 offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case.

4. Allegation is of recovery of 30 litres of liquor from the house of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and after 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 the house is a joint family property as

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30843 of 2024(2) dt.25-04-2024 2/3 such it cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioner who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within the knowledge of the petitioner. It is next submitted that petitioner came to be implicated at the instance of the Chawkidar but then it is submitted that it absolutely does not stand to reason that if the Chawkidar was aware of the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence then why he did not inform the police prior to institution of the instant FIR which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.

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

7. 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 Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Chiraiya P.S. Case No. 53 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

8. However, the learned trial court, before accepting

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30843 of 2024(2) dt.25-04-2024 3/3 the bail bonds of the petitioner, shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more than one case in that event the present anticipatory bail order shall not be given effect to. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T