Shambhu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61866 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-136 Year-2022 Thana- HISUWA District- Nawada ====================================================== 1.

Shambhu Yadav S/O Late Govind Yadav, Resident of village- Maluka Bigha, P.S.- Hisua, District- Nawada.

2.

Bipin Yadav S/O Mahendra Yadav @ Mahendra Prasad Resident Of VillageMaluka Bigha, P.S.- Hisua, District- Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sangeeta Sharma, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(d), 41 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018. Recovery is of total 200 liters of Mahua fermented liquor.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the recovery has been

2/4 made from the water canal and not from petitioners possession. He further submits that the name of the petitioners have been transpired on the basis of disclosure made by Chaukidar and except the disclosure made by Chaukidar no cogent material has come during investigation against the petitioners. Therefore, the recovery cannot be attributed to the petitioners. No case, whatsoever, would be made out against the petitioners under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners 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 and he further submits that petitioners carries one criminal antecedent other than the present one.

This court is aware of the decision of the Full Bench in the case or 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 anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of counsel for the petitioners.

3/4 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioners, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with Hisua P.S. Case No. 136 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and also 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 cancelled 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.

3. And further condition that the court

4/4 below shall verify 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) mdrashid/- U T