Shambhu Kumar Suman v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32775 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2019 Thana- BAUSI District- Purnia ====================================================== SHAMBHU KUMAR SUMAN Son of Bhumi Prasad Yadav Resident of Village - Arraha, P.S.- Saur Bazar, Dist.- Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Shekhar Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms.Veena Kumari Jaiswal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 13-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 272, 273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016 (for short 'the Prohibition Act') registered in connection with Baisi P.S. Case No. 66 of 2019.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on mere suspicion and at best the allegation is that some bottles have been recovered from the water from and around the car belonging to the petitioner. It is stated that no accusation whatsoever has been made that the liquor bottles had been kept in the car at any stage in order to connect the recovery of the bottles of liquor with the petitioner or from his car. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.
4. Ordinarily, an anticipatory bail petition in relation to the offence under the Prohibition Act is not maintainable. However, where, on the basis of the statements in the first information report, the ingredients of the offence alleged against a person are not made out, as observed by a Division Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 21578 of 2017 (Manish Kumar @ Lokesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar) and analogous cases, there would be no bar to the grant of anticipatory bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32775 of 2019(3) dt.13-08-2019 2/2
5. Learned APP has not pointed out any material in the FIR alleging any offence said to have been committed by the petitioner in order to attract the provisions of the Prohibition Act,2016.
6. Be that as it may, in the event of the petitioner's arrest or surrender before the court below within six weeks from the date of communication of this order, let the above named petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Excise Act, Purnea in connection with Baisi P.S. Case No. 66 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438
(2) Cr.P.C. and also subject to the following further conditions: i. That one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner.
ii. That the petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial.
iii. That the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation, if not already concluded, and make himself available as and when so required and in case of failure, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iv. The petitioner shall remain physically present in Court on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned Court concerned. (Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/- U T