Bhuneshwar Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60055 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-767 Year-2023 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

BHUNESHWAR SAHNI S/O NAGINA SAHNI R/O VILLAGE- NAYATOLA, JHAKHIYA, PS. BANJARIYA, DIST. EAST CHAMPARAN 2.

RAMOD SAHNI S/O SATAN SAHNI @ PANNALAL SAHNI R/O VILLAGENAYATOLA, JHAKHIYA, PS. BANJARIYA, DIST. EAST CHAMPARAN ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhurendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sangeeta Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-10-2023 Heard Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sangeeta Sharma, learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Turkauliya (Banjariya) P.S. Case No. 767 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 30(a) and 41(i) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

Recovery is of 160 liters of country made liquor. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that on bare perusal of the F.I.R. and the seizure list, it appears that nothing has been recovered from the house or conscious possession of the petitioners rather the alleged recovery has been made from the bank of Majhariya

2/4 Man river. He further submits that the petitioner was not arrested from the place of occurrence but his name transpired in this case on the disclosure made by the local chaukidar. He further submits that the petitioner has no concern at all with the alleged recovery. Save and except the disclosure of local chaukidar, no cogent material has surfaced during course of investigation suggesting the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged occurrence. He further submits that there is noncompliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C. while preparing the seizure list, therefore, no case would be made out against the petitioners under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners referring to the provisions contained in Section 76(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and submits that the application seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioners would not be maintainable. He further submits that the petitioners carries two more cases each of similar nature other than the present one though they are on bail in each cases.

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 petitioners.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners and they have been made accused in this case at the behest of local chaukidar, let the, above named, petitioners, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Excise Court No.1, Motihari, East Champaran in connection with Turkauliya (Banjariya) P.S. Case No. 767 of 2023, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also with the following conditions:-

(1) Petitioners 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 their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be canceled by the Court below.

(2) If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

And, further condition that the court below shall verify

4/4 the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. 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) brajesh/- U T