Vinod Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40074 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-136 Year-2025 Thana- SARAIYA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Vinod Manjhi S/o Prikshan Manjhi R/o Village- Harpur Gaus, P.S.- Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ S.K., Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 03-07-2025 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ S.K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Saraiya P.S. Case No. 136 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 02.03.2025 for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act.

3. Recovery is of 15 liters of country made Chulai 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 and seizure list that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession

2/4 of the petitioner rather the recovery has been made from the house of the petitioner. He further submits that from perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that the seizure list witnesses are police personnel and 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 and apart from that the petitioner is not the exclusive owner of the house in question rather the house in question is the joint house property of the petitioner and apart from that the similarly situated co-accused person, namely, Laxman Manji has been granted privilege of anticipatory bail vide order dated 26.05.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 32960 of 2025.

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 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) 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 and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of 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 Special Judge, Excise Court No.-II, Muzaffarpur, in connection with Saraiya P.S. Case No. 136 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 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 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

4/4 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) Jyoti Kumari/- U T