Avinash Kumar @ Avinash Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64151 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2024 Thana- HATHAURI District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.

Avinash Kumar @ Avinash Singh, S/O Awadhesh Singh R/O VillageRahtauli, P.S- Hathauri, Distt.- Samastipur (Bihar). 2.

Prince Kumar S/O Gaurishankar Mandal R/O Village- Rahtauli, P.SHathauri, Distt.- Samastipur (Bihar). 3.

Mithilesh Kumar Mandal @ Mithilesh Kumar S/O Harishankar Mandal R/O Village- Rahtauli, P.S- Hathauri, Distt.- Samastipur (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Madhav Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Braj Kishore Pd.(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 04-09-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Excise Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the allegation is of recovery of 720 ml of liquor from the hut of petitioner no.3, Mithilesh Kumar Mandal.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64151 of 2024(2) dt.04-09-2024 2/3 that petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from their conscious possession and after Amendment in the Excise Act, 2018, the concept of deemed possession and presumed offender has been done away with and even the house, which is a joint family property and thus, it cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioners, who had kept the liquor in the house or the liquor kept in the house was within their knowledge and they came to be implicated based on confessional statement of Sanjeev Kumar Yadav in police custody, which does not have any evidentiary value.

5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, abovenamed, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64151 of 2024(2) dt.04-09-2024 3/3 learned Exclusive Special Excise Judge-1, Samastipur in connection with Hathauri P. S. Case No.38 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

7. The application stands allowed.

8. It is made clear that the learned trial Court before accepting the bail bonds of the petitioners shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the event, if it is found that petitioners have antecedent of even one case, in that event, the present anticipatory bail order shall not be given effect to.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T