Pintu Manjhi @ Vikki Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48051 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-654 Year-2020 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna ====================================================== Pintu Manjhi @ Vikki Manjhi SON OF HATHI MANJHI VILLAGEPhulwarishari Janipur, P.S. Janipur, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms.Bindu Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-07-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act in connection with Phulwarisharif (Janipur) P.S. Case No.654 of 2020.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of recovery of 20 liters of liquor from the hut of the petitioner.

4. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession. It is also submitted that alleged recovery is not from a hut but a house and after amendment in the Excise Act in the year 2018 the concept of deemed possession and presumed

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48051 of 2024(2) dt.22-07-2024 2/3 offender has been done away with and the house in question is a joint family property as such it cannot be alleged with certainty that it was petitioner who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within his knowledge and he came to be implicated at the instance of local person, but then the name of the person who disclosed the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the FIR, which cast an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when petitioner admittedly is a person with clean antecedent.

5. The learned APP for the State opposes the anticipatory bail application.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Excise Judge, Patna in connection with Phulwarisharif (Janipur) P.S. Case No.654 of 2020, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

7. It is made clear that the learned trial court before

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48051 of 2024(2) dt.22-07-2024 3/3 accepting the bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event, if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case, in that event, the present anticipatory bail order shall not be given effect.

8. The application stands allowed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Prakash Narayan U T