Akshay Kumar Singh @ Rajneesh @ Farar Raghnish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44800 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2024 Thana- MINAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Akshay kumar Singh @ Rajneesh @ Farar Raghnish Kumar S/O Nandkishore Singh Residents of village- Pipaharan, ward No.-09, P.S- Minapur( Panapur O.P.), District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Ms. Aditi Medha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anil Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-07-2025 Heard Ms. Aditi Medha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Minapur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2024, F.I.R dated 19.01.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016-2022 (Amended).
3. Recovery is of 20 liters of liquor like substance.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. She further submits that it appears from the F.I.R as well as seizure list that nothing has
2/4 been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner rather the recovery has been made from the place of occurrence. She further submits that the name of the petitioner has been transpired on the basis of the disclosure made by the apprehended co-accused, namely, Manish Kumar and he informed the police that the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence and later on he escaped from there. She further submits that except the disclosure made by the co-accused, no other material has come during investigation to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence. There is non-compliance with mandatory procedure prescribed for recovery under Section 100 of Cr.P.C / Section 103 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. No case, whatsoever, would be made out against the petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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
3/4 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 that nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, his name has been transpired on the basis of disclosure made by the apprehended co-accused 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 Court No.I, Muzaffarpur in connection with Minapur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 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
4/4 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 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) Vanisha/- U T