Rajeev Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30571 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2024 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Madhepura ====================================================== Rajeev Kumar Son of Ram Prasad Ram village- Bairbanna Behri, Ward no. 5, Ps- Singheshwar, Dist- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dinesh Prasad Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 14-05-2025 Heard Mr. Dinesh Prasad Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest connection with Excise Case No. 427 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 10.01.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Amendment Act.

3. Recovery is of 03 liters of illegal countrymade liquor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and the name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation. He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R.

2/4 as well as seizure list that two persons namely Sakaldeo Ram and Atul Kumar were apprehended and recovery has been made from the motorcycle in question and petitioner has been made accused in the present case merely on the ground that he is the registered owner of the motorcycle in question. He further submits that the petitioner had given the motorcycle in question to co-accused Sakaldeo Ram who happens to be cousin brother of the petitioner and he was apprehended along with the illicit liquor and petitioner has no concern at all with the alleged recovery of illicit liquor. Therefore, the recovery cannot be attributed to the petitioner. There is non-compliance with mandatory procedure prescribed for recovery under Section 100 of Cr. P.C./ Section 103 of BNSS, 2023 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 petitioner 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.

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.LJ.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 and the fact that the petitioner having clean antecedent and nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and petitioner has been made accused merely on the ground that he is the registered owner of the motorcycle 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 learned Special Judge Excise Court No. 2, Madhepura in connection with Excise Case No. 427 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 and with other following conditions:-

1. 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

4/4 on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

2. 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.

3. 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 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 shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- U T