Awadhesh Yadav @ Ghutar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64869 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2024 Thana- SALAIYA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Awadhesh Yadav @ Ghutar Yadav Son of Vishun Dev Yadav Resident of Village - Gajraj Bigha, P.S. - Salaiya, District- Aurangabad (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Aman Vishal, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms.Sucheta Yadav, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 01-10-2024 Heard Mr.Aman Vishal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Sucheta Yadav, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Salaiya P.S.Case No.38 of 2024, FIR dated 25.05.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2022.
3. Recovery is of 15 liters of country made liquor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case on the basis of the information furnished by the local villagers. It appears from the FIR that nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner rather the recovery has been made from Chalho hill and petitioner has no concern at all
2/4 with the alleged recovery of illicit liquor or other equipments. 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 petitioners 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 of similar nature 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 anticipatory 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 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, let the
3/4 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 Special Judge, Excise Court No.-1, Aurangabad in connection with Salaiya P.S.Case No.38 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions:- (I) 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/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. (II) 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.
(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 antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
4/4 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