Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Kumar Mangalam @ Rahul Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37496 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-190 Year-2017 Thana- CHERIYA BARIYARPUR DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== RAHUL KUMAR @ RAHUL KUMAR MANGALAM @ RAHUL SINGH Son of Arvind Singh R/o Vill.- Khamhar, P.S.- Muffasil, Dist.- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shubhesh Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 17-08-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in the petition within course of the day.

Let the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Cheriyabariyarpur P.S. Case No. 190 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act, 2016.

As per prosecution case, there is alleged recovery of 1123.56 litre illicit foreign liquor from the pickup van in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37496 of 2022(2) dt.17-08-2022 2/3 question.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR and during course of investigation, name of petitioner has surfaced in para 83 of the case diary upon confessional statement of co-accused Mukesh Ishwar @ Lakaruwa, as mentioned in the impugned order. Petitioner is in custody since 20.05.2022 and bears criminal antecedent of seven cases in which most of them are of similar nature. Learned counsel specifically submits that charge sheet has been submitted in the case and there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence. He further submits that no incriminating article has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner or from his house. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, period of custody, petitioner is not named in the FIR, nature of allegation, charge sheet has been submitted in the case and there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence, as submitted and also taking into consideration the material available on record, let the petitioner above named be released on bail, after framing of charge on furnishing bail

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37496 of 2022(2) dt.17-08-2022 3/3 bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Judge, Excise No. 1, Begusarai in connection with Cheriyabariyarpur P.S. Case No. 190 of 2017, subject to following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors shall be either father or mother or sister or brother or wife or the person who has sworn the affidavit in bail application.

(ii) Petitioner will co-operate in trial and will remain present on all dates and absence for two consecutive dates without appropriate permission, would be a ground for cancellation of bail by the learned Trial court itself. (iii) 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.

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) shahzad/- U T