Anil Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73507 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2022 Thana- CHANAN District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== 1.
ANIL RAM Son of Manoj Ram R/v- Kundar, P.S.- Chanan, DistrictLakhisarai 2.
CHINTU RAM @ PINTU RAM Son of Late Bhola Ram R/v- Kundar, P.S.- Chanan, District- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 7 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2022 Thana- CHANAN District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== SANJIT RAVAT @ SANJEEV KUMAR Son of Niroj Ravat R/v- Kundar, P.S.- Chanan, District- Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 6613 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2022 Thana- CHANAN District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== LAXMAN YADAV SON OF SADHO YADAV @ SADHU YADAV R/O VILLAGE- KUNDAR, P.S.- CHANAN, DISTRICT- LAKHISARAI ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 73507 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Binod Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Raj Ballabh Singh (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 7 of 2023) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Niranjan Parihar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Yogendra Kumar Singh (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 6613 of 2023) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Rabi Bhushan
2/5 For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Sangeeta Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10-02-2023 Heard Ld. counsel for the petitioners and Ld. APP for the State.
The petitioners seek bail in connection with Chanan P.S. Case No. 66 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a)(b)(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
As per allegation, 105 litres of liquor was recovered from a bushes.
Ld. counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. He also submits that search and seizure has not been made as per the procedure as prescribed under Section 100 Cr.P.C.
He further submits that the petitioners, namely, Anil Ram, Chintu Ram, Sanjit Ravat and Laxman Yadav have been languishing in jail since 13.10.2022, 13.10.2022,
3/5 24.08.2022 and 09.11.2022 respectively.
It has also been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition that the petitioners, namely, Anil Ram, Chintu Ram, Sanjit Ravat and Laxman Yadav have earlier been made accused in three, three, four and four other cases respectively.
It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioners, namely, Anil Ram and Chintu Ram have moved this Court earlier for grant of anticipatory bail vide Cr.Misc. No. 48703 of 2022 and petitioner, namely, Laxman Yadav has moved this Court earlier for grant of anticipatory bail Cr.Misc. No. 53425 of 2022 whereas petitioner, namely, Sanjit Ravat has not moved this Court earlier either for grant of anticipatory bail or regular one. However, Ld. APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners for bail. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this application is allowed, directing the petitioners, above-named, to be enlarged on bail on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000 /- (Ten Thousand) each with
4/5 two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Ld. Concerned Trail Court in connection with Chanan P.S. Case No. 66 of 2022 on the following conditions: (i) The petitioners will make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer/court as and when required.
(ii) The petitioners will undertake that investigation/trial will not hamper on account of their absence or non-cooperation. They must be available to the police or the court whenever their presence is required. (iii) The petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.
(iv) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that the petitioners have criminal antecedents other than the disclosed one, Ld. court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners after hearing them and getting satisfied that the petitioners have concealed their criminal
5/5 antecedents despite their knowledge of the same. (v) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong, Ld. court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners.
(vi) In case, the petitioner repeats offence of similar nature after enlargement on bail, his bail-bond will be cancelled by the Court below.
Ld. counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove all the defects, if any, pointed out by the office within a period of one month and the Registry is directed to issue the certified copy of this order only after removal of office objections.
(Jitendra Kumar, J) uttam/- U T