Patna High CourtCR. MISC./47890/2024bail granted

Vipin Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-08-07Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47890 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2024 Thana- MOHANPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Vipin Kumar Son Of Ashok Ray Resident Of Village - Dharnipatti, P.S. - Mohanpur, District - Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-08-2024 Heard Mr.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Humayou Ahmad Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mohanpur P.S.Case No.58 of 2024, FIR dated 07.06.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment)Act.

3. Recovery is of 30 liters of country made liquor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. As per FIR, allegation is that one person was arrested, namely, Raushan Kumar who has suggested that one Sanjay Kumar was also involved in the present case with the help of the motorcycle of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

2/4 petitioner submits that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated in fact the petitioner has no concern at all with the alleged recovery of illicit liquor and he is in good faith has provided the motorcycle to the co-accused person and he has been made accused in the present case on the ground that the petitioner is owner of of the motorcycle in question. 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 petitioners under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for 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) PLJR 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.

3/4

7. Considering the aforesaid facts, petitioner has clean antecedent, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, 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 learned Exclusive Special Judge, Excise Court-2, Samastipur in connection with Mohanpur P.S.Case No.

58 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/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her 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

4/4 any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his/her 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) Nitesh/- U T