Dharmendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48327 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-311 Year-2024 Thana- NARHATT District- Nawada ====================================================== Dharmendra Kumar S/o- Madhesh Singh @ Madhesh Yadav Resident of Village- Mahammadpur, P.S.- Khijarsarai, District- Gaya, ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-08-2025 Heard Mr. Man Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Narhat P.S. Case No. 311 of 2024, F.I.R dated 06.09.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016/Amendment Act, 2022.

3. Recovery is of 164 liters of country made Mahua liquor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and fabricated. He

2/4 further submits that it appears from the F.I.R and seizure list that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner rather the recovery has been made from a tempo in question and petitioner has been made accused in present case merely on the ground that he is the registered owner of the tempo in question. He further submits that co-accused, namely, Neeraj Kumar, who was the driver of the tempo in question, was apprehended along with the alleged liquor with other accused persons and said Neeraj Kumr is the brother of the petitioner. 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. 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. He further submits that the petitioner is named in the FIR.

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, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and he has been made accused in this case merely on the ground that he is the registered owner of the tempo in question, 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 Excise Court- 1, Nawada in connection with Narhat P.S. Case No. 311 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) sauravkrsinha/- U T