Mithlesh Kumar @ Mithilesh Mahto v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39116 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-387 Year-2020 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Mithlesh Kumar @ Mithilesh Mahto, Son of Janak Mahto, R/o villageBambaiya Harlal, P.S. - Dalsinghsarai, Dist. - Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-09-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks from today.
Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through video conferencing.
The petitioner seeks regular bail, who is in custody in connection with Dalsinghsarai P.S. Case No. 387 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under Section 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
As per prosecution case, it is alleged that the police on a secret information raided the filed of co-accused Awadhesh Mahto and on noticing the police party 14-15 accused persons succeeded in fleeing away, however, the Chaukidar identified 8 of the persons, including the petitioner. On search, total 252
2/4 litres of illicit wine was recovered from the field of co-accused Awadhesh mahto.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was neither arrested at the spot nor any incriminating material has been recovered from his conscious or constructive possession. So far the recovery is concerned, the same has been made from the land of co-accused Awadhesh Mahto and the petitioner has neither any concern with the place of occurrence nor with the recovered illicit liquor. He next submits that only because of his one past criminal antecedent of similar nature, the name of the petitioner has been implicated in this case. He lastly submits that several co-accused persons, having identical allegation, have already been granted bail by the different learned coordinate Benches of this Court, the copies of which have been brought on record by way of Annexure-3 Series to this application.
While concluding his submission, he also submits that the petitioner is in custody since12.01.2022 and moreover the investigation of the crime is completed and charge-sheet has been submitted. On the other hand learned APP for the State opposes the bail application.
Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf
3/4 of the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner was neither arrested at the spot nor any incriminating material has been recovered and the co-accused persons, having identical alelgation, have already been granted bail, let the petitioner, named above, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Excise Court No.1, Samastipur in connection with Dalsinghsarai P.S. Case No. 387 of 2020, subject to the condition that one of the bailors will be the close relatives of the petitioner with further conditions which are as follows:- (i) The petitioner will cooperate in conclusion of the trial.
(ii) He will remain physically present on each and every date of trial till disposal of the case. (iii) He will not try to tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witnesses to delay the disposal of trial. (iv) In the event of default of two consecutive dates without any cogent reason, his bail bonds will liable to be cancelled.
(v) The court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is found
4/4 that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take immediate step for cancelling the bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds, in terms of the above-mentioned order, shall not be delayed for this purpose or in the name of verification.
(Harish Kumar, J) uday/- U T