Patna High CourtCR. MISC./73531/2023bail granted

Achhelal Singh @ Prem Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2023-11-09Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73531 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2023 Thana- SURYAPURA District- Rohtas ====================================================== Achhelal Singh @ Prem Kumar Son Of Kapil Singh Resident Of VillageKosanda, Ps- Suryapura, Distt- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mohit Shriwastava, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 09-11-2023 Heard Mr. Mohit Shriwastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Suryapura P.S. Case No. 07 of 2023, F.I.R dated 13.03.2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and 30(d) of Bihar Exicse and Prohibition Amendment Act, 2018.

3. Recovery is of 30 liters of country made liquor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case on the basis of the secret information. He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession

2/4 or the house of the petitioner. He further submits that except the secret information, no other material has come during investigation to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence. 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.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory 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.

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) 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.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and the petitioner has clean antecedent, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below

3/4 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 Exclusive Special Excise Court No. 2 cum ADSJ 13th Rohtas at Sasasram in connection with Suryapura P.S. Case No. 07 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other 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

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) Vanisha/- U T