Nitish Kumar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3508 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-572 Year-2024 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.

Nitish Kumar Mandal S/o Fekan Lal Mandal @ Fekan Mandal Resident of Village- Manjhwe, P.S.-Jamui, District- Jamui. 2.

Dhiraj Kumar @ Dhiraj Saw S/o Rajendra Saw Resident of VillageChhathu Dhanama, P.S.-Jamui, District- Jamui. ... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-02-2025 Heard Mr. Dipak Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Jamui PS Case No. 572 of 2024, FIR dated 08.09.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. 3.

Recovery is of 950 mL of foreign liquor.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that petitioner no. 1 is the owner of the vehicle in question and it appears from

2/4 the perusal of the FIR that altogether 950 mL of Indian made foreign liquor has been recovered from the vehicle in question and name of petitioner no. 2 transpired on the basis of disclosure made by apprehended co-accused person. There is noncompliance with mandatory procedure prescribed for recovery under Section 100 of Cr.P.C. / Section 103 of BNSS, 2023. No case, whatsoever, would be made out against the petitioners under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

5.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners 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 petitioners.

7.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

3/4 and mainly the facts that petitioners have clean antecedent, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioners and name of petitioners transpired on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused person, let the petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Excise Court-I, Jamui, where the case is pending in connection with Jamui PS Case No. 572 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. / Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and also the following conditions:- (i).

Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the learned trial Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the learned trial Court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the learned trial Court.

(ii). If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to

4/4 move for cancellation of bail.

(iii). And further condition that the learned trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case, at any stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the learned trial Court shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the abovementioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Shahnawaz/- U T