Patna High CourtCR. MISC./56691/2022bail granted

Pankaj Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

2022-11-25Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56691 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2020 Thana- PUPRI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== PANKAJ CHAUDHARY SON OF LATE IND CHAUDHARY R/O VILLAGE- PUPRI GAON, WARD NO. 5, P.S.- PUPRI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vikash Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in the virtual court proceeding.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 272, 273, 34 of IPC and 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and the Excise(Amendment) Act, 2016.

Recovery is of 6 liters of spurious toddy.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. He

2/4 further submits that the very small recovery has been made from hut shop in question and not from petitioner's possession and the petitioner has no concern with the alleged recovery. Therefore, the recovery cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Co-accused namely, Anil Chaudhary has been granted bail vide order dated 13.06.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2406 of 2022 and the case of petitioner is of similar footing. There is noncompliance 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.

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 carries two more cases other than the present one. This court is aware of the decision of the Full Bench in the case of 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

3/4 anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of counsel for the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, 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 Court below where the case is pending in connection with Pupri P.S. Case No. 162 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other 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

4/4 verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any state 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) nilmani/- U T