Patna High CourtCR. MISC./35584/2025bail granted

Jahid Mansuri v. The State Of Bihar

2025-06-16Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35584 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2025 Thana- Excise P.S. District- Madhubani ====================================================== Jahid Mansuri S/o Sadakat Mansuri Resident of Village Usrahi Tole, Gobrahi, Police Station Deodha, Dist Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bhavesh Kumar Sah, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umesh Lal Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-06-2025 Heard Mr.Bhavesh Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Umesh Lal Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sadar Excise P.S.Case No.41 of 2025,FIR dated 04.02.2025 arising out of G.O. Case No.186 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. Recovery is of 99 liters of Nepali country made and 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. It appears from the FIR that altogether 99 liters of Nepali country made and foreign liquor were recovered from the Tempo in question and one, namely,

2/4 Ramesh Chaudhary was apprehended alongwith the illicit liquor. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been made accused in the present case merely on the ground that the name of the petitioner is mentioned in the D.T.O. office as owner of the vehicle in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the petitioner has sold the vehicle in question to one Ramesh Chaudhary, who was apprehended alongwith the illicit liquor on 26.10.2024 (Annexure-2) itself. 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. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for 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) PLJR 1089. Having regard to the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission advanced on

3/4 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, petitioner has clean antecedent, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and petitioner has already sold the vehicle in question to one Ramesh Chaudhary, who was apprehended alongwith the illicit liquor on 26.10.2024 (Annexure-2) itself, 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 District and Addl. Sessions Judge -2-cum-Special Judge, Excise Act, Madhubani in connection with Sadar Excise P.S.Case No.41 of 2025 arising out of G.O. Case No.

4/4 on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her 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/her 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) Nitesh/- U T