Mantu Paswan @ Mantu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33289 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-426 Year-2021 Thana- SASARAM MUFFSIL District- Rohtas ====================================================== Mantu Paswan @ Mantu Kumar S/O Tribhuwan Paswan R/O Vill.- Mishripur, P.S.- Sasaram (M), Dist.- Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 10-07-2025 Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sasaram (M) P.S. Case No. 426 of 2021, F.I.R dated 03.12.2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018/22.
3. Recovery is of 54.540 liters of illicit 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 altogether 54.540 liters of liquor has been recovered from the tempo in question. Name of the petitioner has been transpired on the basis of the
2/4 disclosure made by the apprehended co-accused person who happens to be the driver of the said tempo. He further submits that the recovery has been made near the Kanchanpur river and the petitioner has no concern at all with the alleged recovery of the illicit liquor. There is non-compliance with mandatory procedure prescribed for recovery under Section 100 of Cr.P.C / Section 103 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. No case, whatsoever, would be made out against the petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
5. 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 that the petitioner
3/4 has clean antecedent, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and the name of the petitioner has been transpired on the basis of the disclosure made by the apprehended co-accused, 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 Judge, Court No. 2, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Sasaram (M) P.S. Case No. 426 of 2021, 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.
4/4 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 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) Vanisha/- U T