Suraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36441 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-23 Year-2025 Thana- DIGHWARA District- Saran ====================================================== Suraj Kumar S/o Harendra Ram @ Harendra Paswan R/o Village- Basatpur Bakhna Majhaua, P.S.- Dighwara, District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-08-2025 Heard Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dighwara P.S. Case No. 23 of 2025, F.I.R dated 28.01.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 132, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023.
3. Recovery is of 50 liters of country made liquor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and fabricated. He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R that nothing has
2/4 been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner rather the recovery has been made from behind the house of Bhola Paswan and the petitioner has been made accused on the basis of disclosure made by local chowkidar and the local chowkidar disclosed the name of 12 persons,who are engaged in selling of liquor and similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Abhishek Kumar and Aditya Kumar @ Aditya have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Bench of other Court vide order dated 30.07.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 46655 of 2025. 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. 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.L.J.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, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and the petitioner has clean antecedent and similarly situated coaccused persons have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Bench of other Court, 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 1st Exclusive Special Excise Judge, Saran at Chapra in connection with Dighwara P.S. Case No. 23 of 2025, 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
4/4 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.
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) Suruchi/- U T