Rohit Tiwari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26455 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2025 Thana- KRISHNAGARH District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Rohit Tiwari Son of Kanhaiya Tiwary R/O Village- Kanha Chapra, P.S.- Sinha, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bibhakar Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sharda Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 01-05-2025 Heard Mr. Bibhakar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sharda Kumari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Krishnagarh P.S. Case No. 28 of 2025, F.I.R dated 06.03.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. Recovery is of 14.850 liters of foreign liquor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and has 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 that it appears from the F.I.R and seizure list that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of

2/4 the petitioner rather the recovery has been made from the scooty in question and the name of the petitioner has been transpired merely on the basis of that he is the owner of the motorcycle in question but the brother of the petitioner was apprehended along with the alleged recovery i.e. of 14.580 of illicit liquor with scooty in question.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner referring the provision contained in Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submitted that the pre-arrest bail would not be maintainable.

6. This court is aware of the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar 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 petitioner.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, the petitioner has clean antecedent and the name of the petitioner has been transpired merely on the basis of that he is the owner

3/4 of the scooty in question, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his 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) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Excise Court No. 1, Bhojpur at Ara in connection with Krishnagarh P.S. Case No. 28 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.

Petitioner 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 court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers 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 petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed

4/4 his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order 26433 shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Jyoti Kumari/- U T