Amit Mahto v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69731 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-408 Year-2020 Thana- SAHEBGANJ District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.
Amit Mahto Son of Dhanu Mahto R/V- Madhurapur, P.S- Sahebganj, DistMuzaffarpur 2.
Suresh Gosai Son of Late Ramdeo Gosai R/V- Madhurapur, P.S- Sahebganj, Dist- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rajeev Ranjan No.Ii, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in the virtual court proceeding.
Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of the bail petition, petitioner No. 2 namely, Suresh Gosai has been arrested, so the present application with respect to petitioner No.2 has become infructuous and hence, he seeks permission to withdraw this application with respect to petitioner No. 2.
Permission is accorded.
2/4 Accordingly, this application with respect to petitioner No. 2 stands dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
Recovery is of 550.305 litres of foreign liquor. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the name of the petitioner has been transpired on the basis of the secret information of local chowkidar. He further submits that the recovery has been made from the Bolero pickup van and not from petitioner's possession. He further submits that the petitioner has no concern at all with the alleged recovery of the illicit liquor and he is neither the owner nor the driver of the vehicle 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.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
3/4 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.
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 anticipatory bail, is inclined to accept the submission of counsel for the petitioner.
Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and his name has been transpired on the basis of the secret information and the petitioner has clean antecedent, 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 the learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 408 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other
4/4 following conditions:-
1. 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 absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
2. 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.
3. 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 criminal antecedent, 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) Vanisha/- U T