Birju Chaudary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38876 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-161 Year-2020 Thana- PHULWARIA District- Begusarai ====================================================== BIRJU CHAUDARY, S/o Ganga Chaudhary R/o village- Phulwaria 3, Ward No. 2, P.S.- Phulwariya, District- Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Braj Bhushan Poddar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar No.2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-10-2021 Let the defect(s) be removed within two weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Excise Complaint Case No. 161C2 of 2019, registered under Section 30(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the recovery of alleged illicit liquor has not been recovered from his conscious possession neither from his house. However, he states that the recovery has been made from the wife of the petitioner, who was carrying jarkin in her hands. Learned counsel further points out that from the bare perusal of the report under Section 78(4), dated 25.08.2020, it is evident that the said recovery has been made at Fulwariya,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38876 of 2020(2) dt.29-10-2021 2/2 Ward No. 2. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was not present at the time when the alleged illicit liquor was recovered from the possession of his wife.

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of State, however, opposes the prayer of the petitioner and states that the recovery has been made from the conscious possession of the wife of the petitioner, as such complicity of the petitioner cannot be ruled out in illegal trade of illicit liquor. Having perused the complaint and the report under Section 78(4), it appears that the petitioner was not present at the time of alleged seizure neither anything was recovered from his possession later on, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Excise Act, Begusarai in connection with Complaint Case No. 161C2 of 2020, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438

(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Purnendu Singh, J) manish/- U T