Patna High CourtCR. MISC./54660/2022bail granted

Chandan Kumar Tiwari v. The State Of Bihar

2022-11-22Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54660 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-577 Year-2022 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Chandan Kumar Tiwari S/O Umesh Tiwari R/O Village- Kausibahiyar, Pairdih, P.S.- Godda Town, District- Godda(Jharkhand). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Pushpa Sinha, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

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 Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018. Recovery is of total 308.25 liters of illegal foreign liquor.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the recovery has been made from vehicle in question and not from petitioner's possession. He further submits that the vehicle in

2/4 question was looted by unknown criminals on 07.03.2022 for which the petitioner had lodged Bounshi P.S. Case No. 57 of 2022 itself. He further submits that petitioner has no concern at all with the alleged recovery or the vehicle in question and the same was stolen long back in March, 2022 itself. Therefore, the recovery cannot be attributed to the petitioner. No case, whatsoever, would be made out against the petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

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. 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 for the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the

3/4 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 Madhepura P.S. Case No. 577 of 2022, 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 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

4/4 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