← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./59398/2023bail granted

Langatu Ram @ Legatu Ram @ Krishna Mohan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2023-10-07Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59398 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-569 Year-2023 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== Langatu Ram @ Legatu Ram @ Krishna Mohan Kumar Son Of Vijay Ram Resident Of Village - Tarachandi, P.S. - Darigaon, District - Rohtas At Sasaram ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Chhote Lal Mishra,Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Aditya Narayan Singh-1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-10-2023 Heard Mr.Chhote Lal Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Aditya Narayan Singh-1, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sasaram (T), (Darigaon) P.S.Case No.569 of 2023, F.I.R. dated 07.07.2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018.

3. Recovery is of 100 liters of illicit liquor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case on the basis of the disclosure made by the co-accused persons, namely, Vikash Kumar and Ajit Kumar, who have been apprehended on

2/4 the spot and it appears from the FIR that nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner rather the recovery has been made from the motorcycle in question and the petitioner is not the owner of the motorcycle in question and he has no concern at all with the alleged recovery of illicit liquor or the motorcycle in question. Therefore, the recovery cannot be attributed to the petitioner. 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.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner referring the provision contained in Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submitted that the pre-arrest bail would not be maintainable. Further submits that the petitioner carries one more case other than the present one but fairly submits that the petitioner is on bail in the said case, as mentioned in para-3 of the bail petition.

6. 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) PLJR 1089. Having regard to the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission advanced on

3/4 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, the name of the petitioner has been transpired in the present case on the basis of the disclosure made by the co-accused persons, namely, Vikash Kumar and Ajit Kumar, 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 learned Exclusive Special Excise Court No.-2cum-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Sasaram (T), (Darigaon) P.S.Case No.

4/4 reason, his/her bail bonds shall be cancelled by the Court below. (II) If the petitioner tamper 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/her criminal antecedents, 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) Nitesh/- U T