Mantu Gop v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 31493 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-217 Year-2025 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Mantu Gop S/o Late Koshan Rai Resident of village- Jaitiya, Police stationSonepur, District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Ms. Mili Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Bharat Lal, APP ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 01-07-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 37 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and 126(2), 115(2), 191(1), 191(3), 190, 109 of the B.N.S. Petitioner has seven criminal antecedents.
3. As per the prosecution case, the police has gone to village Jaitiya and when they were alighting from the jeep, it is alleged that altogether 12 named accused persons along with 10 to 12 unknown persons attacked the police and hurled abuses. It is further alleged that when the police tried to stop them, the accused persons fled away but the police apprehended the petitioner and co-accused Bablu Gop and Rakesh Kumar who was found to be in an inebriated condition.
2/4
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated only because he carries a long list of antecedent. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and the allegation of persons being intoxicated is not against the petitioner. It has lastly been submitted that petitioner is in custody since 15.03.2025.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Considering the nature of allegation which is general and omnibus, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail furnishing bail bonds and thereafter bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten 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 Sonepur P.S. Case No. 217 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his close relative and the other shall be local resident. (ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present in
3/4 Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the court concerned. (iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned 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.
(vi) In view of the antecedent of the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Superintendent of Police, Saran within fifteen days of his release with a copy of this order and every two weeks thereafter for the next nine months. The conduct of the petitioner will be kept under watch in this period by the Superintendent of Police concerned and if it is found wanting in any respect, a report shall be made to the court concerned by him to initiate a proceeding for cancellation of bail for reasons of misuse of bail. After reporting to the Superintendent of Police, a
4/4 certificate will be filed by the petitioner before the court concerned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Sourendra Pandey, J) Raj Ranjan/- U T