Patna High CourtCR. MISC./41803/2019bail granted

Devesh Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2019-07-08Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41803 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-94 Year-2019 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL District- Samastipur ====================================================== DEVESH SINGH, aged about 29 years, male, S/o Raghunandan Prasad Singh R/o Village/Mohalla- Kashipur Ward No. 6, P.S.- Muffasil (Samastipur), District- Samastipur (Owner of Royal Engield Bullet Motorcycle Regd. No. BR-33AD-4700) ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party:

APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 08-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 30(a), 32(ii) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Prohibition Act') registered in connection with Muffasil (Samastipur) Case No. 94 of 2019.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and even on perusal of the F.I.R., no offence whatsoever under the Prohibition Act is made out against the petitioner. There is nothing in the F.I.R. to suggest that the recovery of the offending goods has been made on the petitioner's motorcycle nor he is any way connected with the recovery of the seized articles. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.

4. Ordinarily, an anticipatory bail petition in relation to the offence under the Prohibition Act is not maintainable. However, where, on the basis of the statements in the first information report, the ingredients of the offence alleged against a persons are not made out, as observed by a Division Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 21578 of 2017 (Manish Kumar @ Lokesh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar) and analogous cases, there

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41803 of 2019(2) dt.08-07-2019 2/2 would be no bar to the grant of anticipatory bail.

5. Learned APP has not pointed out any material in the F.I.R. alleging any offence to have been committed by the petitioners in order to attract the provisions of the said Prohibition Act.

6. Be that as it may, in the event of the petitioner's arrest or surrender before the court below within six weeks from the date of communication of this order, let the above named petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge, Excise Act, Samastipur, Samastipur in connection with Muffasil (Samstipur) P.S. Case No. 94 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C., and also subject to the following further conditions - (i) That one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) That the petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial.

(iii) That the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation, if not already concluded, and make himself available as and when so required and in case of failure, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. (iv) That the petitioner shall remain physically present in Court on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned Court concerned.

(Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar//- U T