Sunil Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63841 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-144 Year-2021 Thana- SIRDALA District- Nawada ====================================================== SUNIL CHOUDHARY Son of Late Mahesh Chaudhary R/o VillageNewalchak, P.S.- Meskaur, District- Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sudhir Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satyadeo Singh Yadav ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 05-05-2022 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 Sirdalla (Meskaur) P.S. Case No. 144 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

The allegation is of recovery of 110 litres of mahua country made liquor near Dhadhar river at village Nevalchak by the chukidar in course of patrolling. The F.I.R. is against unknown.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63841 of 2021(2) dt.05-05-2022 2/3 submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been roped in this case merely on suspicion. 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 22.07.2021.

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, period of custody undergone by the petitioner, petitioner was not apprehended on the spot, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and merely on suspicion he has been made accused in this case by the chaukidar of the village, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. District

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63841 of 2021(2) dt.05-05-2022 3/3 and Sessions Judge-II cum Special Judge, Nawada in connection with Sirdalla (Meskaur) P.S. Case No. 144 of 2021, subject to the following conditions:-

(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