Manoj Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30553 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2025 Thana- ROHTAS District- Rohtas ====================================================== Manoj Chaudhary S/o Babulal Chaudhary R/o Village- Uchaila, P.S.- Rohtas, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashish, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 14-05-2025 Heard Mr. Ashish, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest connection with Rohtas P.S. Case No. 40 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 12.03.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and 37 of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act.

3. Recovery is of 4.5 liters of foreign liquor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R. as well as seizure list that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner rather recovery has been made from motorcycle in question and two

2/4 accused persons namely Saravan Chaudhary and Bindu Chaudhary were apprehended along with the illicit liquor and the motorcycle in question and thereafter seizure list was prepared on the basis of secret inforamation and the police has searched the motorcycle in question and has found 4.5 litres of foreign liquor was recovered from the motorcycle in question and the name of the petitioner has been transpired on the basis that the petitioner is the registered owner of the motorcycle in question. 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 reported in 2019(2) P.LJ.R. 1089. Having regard to the law laid

3/4 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 that the petitioner having clean antecedent and nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and the name of the petitioner has been transpired 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 Exclusive Special Judge, Excise Court No. 2, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Rohtas PS. Case No. 40 of 2025, 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