Dharam Sahni @ Dharmnath Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58241 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-152 Year-2021 Thana- MITHANPURA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== DHARAM SAHNI @ DHARMNATH SAHNI Son of Shankar Sahni Resident of Village - Kanhauli Vishun Dutt at Mohan Sahni Tola, P.S.- Mithanpura, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nitu Kumari, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Parmanand Kumar, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-04-2022 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 152 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

Allegation is of recovery of 20 litres of country made liquor and other equipments meant for brewing liquor from the house of the petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58241 of 2021(3) dt.28-04-2022 2/3 submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. Nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner. He has no concern either with the manufacturing of liquor or its trade in any manner. Petitioner has clean antecedent and he is in custody since 11.08.2021.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. He submits that the trade of illicit liquor is rampant in the State of Bihar. In spite of complete prohibition in the State, due to consumption of illicit liquor, people at large are dying everyday and they are suffering from various physical disorder, as such it would not be in public interest to release the petitioner on bail.

Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case and period of custody undergone by the petitioner, without going into the merits of the case, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Excise Act, Muzaffarpur in connection with Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 152 of 2021, subject to the following conditions:-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58241 of 2021(3) dt.28-04-2022 3/3

(1) Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned.

(2) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court.

(3) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

(4) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature of offence, after his release on bail, the trial Court shall take steps to cancel his bail bonds.

(5) The court below is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner is involved in some other cases as what has been stated in Para-3 of the bail petition, this order will automatically loose its force.

(Purnendu Singh, J) mantreshwar/- U T