Sudhanshu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75097 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-320 Year-2022 Thana- SURYAGARHA District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== SUDHANSHU KUMAR Son of Binod Kumar Singh Resident of Village - Salempur, P.S.- Suryagarha (Manikpur O.P.), District - Lakhisarai (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 75374 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-320 Year-2022 Thana- SURYAGARHA District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== RAUSHAN KUMAR Son of Ramvilash Singh R/v- Salempur, P.S.- Surajgarha (Manikpur op), District- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 75097 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 75374 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Binay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 25-02-2023 Heard Ld. counsel for the petitioners and Ld. APP for the State.

The petitioners seek bail in connection with Suryagarha P.S. Case No. 320 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and 32(iii) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

2/4 As per allegation, 29.250 litres of foreign made liquor was recovered from the two bags.

Ld. counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioners have been languishing in jail since 20.10.2022.

It has also been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition that the petitioner, namely, Sudhanshu Kumar has earlier been made accused in one other case, whereas, petitioner, namely, Raushan Kumar has no criminal antecedents.

It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioners have not moved this Court earlier either for 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,

3/4 above-named, to be enlarged on bail on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000 /- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Ld. Additional District and Sessions Judge-4th-cum-Spl. Excise Court-1st, Lakhisarai in connection with Suryagarha P.S. Case No. 320 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

4/4 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 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