Patna High CourtCR. MISC./88617/2024bail granted

Pramod Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

2025-01-08Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88617 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-133 Year-2024 Thana- Manuapul District- West Champaran ====================================================== Pramod Chaudhary Son of Naresh Chaudhary R/o Village- Patarkha, PsManuapul, Dist- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Umesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-01-2025 Heard Mr.Umesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Rajendra Prasad Nat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Manuapool P.S.Case No.133 of 2024,FIR dated 06.11.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

3. Recovery is of 04 liters of illegal liquor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. He has falsely been implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. As per FIR, altogether 04 liters of illegal liquor was recovered from the house of the petitioner. Learned

2/4 counsel for the petitioner submits that the house in question does not belong to the petitioner and he has been made accused in the present case merely on the ground of village politics. 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 petitioners under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for 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) PLJR 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, petitioner has clean antecedent, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, there is non-compliance with

3/4 mandatory procedure prescribed for recovery under Section 100 of Cr.P.C. because the witnesses are the police personnel, 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 learned Exclusive Special Judge, Excise-I, Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with Manuapool P.S.Case No.

133 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions:- (I) 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/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. (II) 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.

(III) 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/her

4/4 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) Nitesh/- U T