Bhunnu Yadav @ Tunu @ Arvind Kumar @ Arvindra Yadav @ Bhunnu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83420 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-13 Year-2024 Thana- Panchanpur District- Gaya ====================================================== Bhunnu Yadav @ Tunu @ Arvind Kumar @ Arvindra Yadav @ Bhunnu Son of Jagdish Yadav Resident of Village- Malsari, P.S. Panchanpur, DistrictGaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-12-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had earlier moved seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.39292/2024 and the same was allowed by an order dated 28.06.2024 with a condition that the learned trial court before accepting the bail bonds of the petitioner shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the event if it is found that the petitioner has antecedent of even one case in that event the present anticipatory bail order shall not be given effect to. It is next submitted that thereafter the petitioner again filed Cr. Misc. No.61929/2024 and the same came to be rejected by

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83420 of 2024(2) dt.06-12-2024 2/2 an order dated 31.08.2024 as the petitioner earlier had obtained anticipatory bail by concealing his antecedent. However, liberty was given to the petitioner to renew his prayer after framing of charge. The learned counsel submits that charges against the petitioner has been framed on 30.09.2024 and the petitioner is in custody since 13.07.2024.

4. Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Panchanpur P.S. Case No.13/2024.

6. However, if the learned trial court comes to a conclusion that petitioner after his release is trying to delay the trial in any manner, in that event, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. (Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T