Patna High CourtCR. MISC./49234/2022bail granted

Amar Chauhan v. The State Of Bihar

2022-11-18Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49234 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-821 Year-2021 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna ====================================================== Amar Chauhan Son Of Umesh Chauhan R/O Village- Govindpur, Noniya Tola, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rudra Deo For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in virtual court proceeding.

Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a), 30(C), 32(iii), 36 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.

Recovery is of total 235 liters of country made wine. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the recovery has been made from the house in question and not from petitioner's

2/4 possession. Therefore, the recovery cannot be attributed to the petitioner. He further submits that 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. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused namely, Sunil Chauhan and Santosh Chauhan have been granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.03.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 9379 of 2022. The 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 prearrest bail would not be maintainable and he further submits that that petitioner carries one criminal antecedent other than the present one.

This court is aware of the decision of the Full Bench in the case or 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

3/4 for the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory 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 Court below where the case is pending in connection with Special Case No. 6179 of 2021 arising out of Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 821 of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and also the following conditions:-

1. 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.

2. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation

4/4 of bail.

3. 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) mdrashid/- U T