Shambhoo Sahni @ Shambhu Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47602 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2024 Thana- NOWKOTHI GARHPURA DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== Shambhoo Sahni @ Shambhu Sahni S/o Late Vasudev Sahni R/o ward no. 10, Shekhpura, Razakpur, P.S. - Naokothi, Distt. - Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-08-2024 Heard Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Naokothi P.S. Case No. 28 of 2024, F.I.R dated 19.03.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. Recovery is of 10 liters of country made liquor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and has falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the basis of the suspicion. He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R as

2/4 well as seizure list that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner rather the recovery has been made from the open field of Sanjay Singh and the petitioner has no concern at all with the alleged recovery or the co-accused person. There is non-compliance with mandatory procedure prescribed for recovery under Section 100 of Cr.P.C. No case, whatsoever, would be made out against the petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, 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 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, nothing has been

3/4 recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and the petitioner has clean antecedent, 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 the learned Exclusive Special Judge, Excise-I, Begusarai in connection with Naokothi P.S. Case No. 28 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 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

4/4 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) ajay/- U T