Patna High Court - Orders
Ashok Sahani vs The State Of Bihar on 7 July, 2017
Author: Ashwani Kumar Singh
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.26109 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -634 Year- 2016 Thana -TURKAULIYA District- EAST
CHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI)
======================================================
1. Ashok Sahani, son of Late Lalu Sahani, resident of Village- Nayka Tola
Jhakhia, P.S.- Banjariya, District- East Champaran.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 07-07-2017Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Turkauliya (Banjariya) P.S.Case No. 634 of 2016 dated 16.12.2016 registered for the offences under Sections 272, 273, 290 of the Indian Penal Code and 36, 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (for short „the Act‟), the petitioner has filed the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short „Cr.P.C.‟) for grant of pre-arrest bail.
3. According to the prosecution case, the raiding police party recovered one plastic gallon containing one litre country made wine from near the door of the petitioner where fodder was Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26109 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-2017 2/22 stored.
4. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State that in view of the provisions prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 76 of „the Act‟ the instant application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there would be no application of sub-section (2) of Section 76 of the Act in view of the fact that nothing was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He submitted that since the petitioner did not commit any offence under the Act, his application for grant of pre-arrest bail is maintainable. He further contended that even otherwise applications under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. are being entertained as no objection is raised by the Registry in this regard and the cases are being listed as defect free cases and different Benches of the Court are entertaining the applications preferred under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and granting bail to the petitioners facing accusation of having committed an offence under „the Act‟.
6. Several Advocates, who are present in the Court, have supported the contention advanced by the learned counsel Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26109 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-2017 3/22 for the petitioner. They have stated in one voice that „the Act‟ is very stringent and there is all likelihood of the same being misused by the erring officials. They have stated that after the enactment of „the Act‟, more than 25,000 cases have been instituted across the State within a short span of few months. According to them, there are also reports of the Police and Bihar Excise Department Officials abusing the new prohibition law in the State to harass the people and extort money from them. They have stated that some businessmen from Punjab, who were on way to Kolkatta, were stopped at the check-post of National Highway in Kaimur district and the officials planted two bottles of liquor in their car. Since possession of liquor is prohibited in the State of Bihar, the officials demanded Rs.50,000/-. When the businessmen stated that they did not have that much money, the policemen made them to draw money from a nearby ATM. It is stated that one of the businessmen complained to the Superintendent of Police at whose instance an FIR was instituted against the errant officials and altogether three persons including one excise official and two special auxiliary personnel were sent to jail. They have stated that there are several other instances of innocent persons being framed in cases under „the Act‟.
7. Learned Advocates present in the Court submitted Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26109 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-2017 4/22 that all offences under „the Act‟ have been made cognizable and non-bailable and thus the innocent persons become victim either due to hostile approach of the errant officials or because of the faction ridden society in which persons on inimical terms can easily plant few bottles in order to implicate an innocent man and because of the stringent provision if pre-arrest bail is not granted, there is always a threat of such persons being sent to jail.
8. It is unanimously submitted by the learned Advocates appearing in different cases listed before me that the regular bail applications by the courts below are being rejected mechanically in most of the cases taking into consideration the nature of punishment prescribed under „the Act‟ and even in cases of false implication, the accused persons are sent to jail.
9. It is submitted that almost all the Benches of this Court hearing bail matters are flooded with the cases of the offences under „the Act‟ only because bail is not being granted by the courts below. It is also submitted that one of the reasons why pre-arrest bail applications are being filed before this Court is the apprehension that if the accused persons surrender and seek bail, they would not be granted bail.
10. Countering the submissions noted above, Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State submitted that Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26109 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-2017 5/22 it is true that large number of cases are being filed before this Court relating to the offences under „the Act‟, but that is because people are violating the provisions of „the Act‟ and not because innocent persons are being implicated in false cases. He submitted that the courts below are disposing of the bail matters taking into consideration the nature and gravity of accusation and the role of the accused and it cannot be said that mechanical orders are being passed by the courts below in the matters of bail relating to the offences under „the Act‟.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
12. I take judicial notice of the fact that today itself more than 45 cases for grant of pre-arrest bail in the matters arising out of the offences under „the Act‟ have been listed before me. I also take judicial notice of the fact that large number of applications for grant of pre-arrest bail as also for grant of regular bail are being filed before this Court since the date of coming into force of „the Act‟, by persons who have been made accused of the offences under „the Act‟.
13. In order to appreciate as to whether or not an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. would be maintainable in the cases arising out of the offences under „the Act‟, at this juncture, it would be appropriate to extract sub- Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26109 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-2017 6/22 section (2) of Section 76 of „the Act‟ The said provision reads as under :-
"76. Offences to be Cognizable and Non-
Bailable.--
(2) Notwithstanding anything mentioned in subsection (1) above, nothing in Section-360 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974), Section-438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974) and Probation of Offenders Act 1958 (20 of 1958) shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act."
14. It would be manifest from a reading of sub-section (2) of Section 76 of „the Act‟ that it disentitles an accused committing an offence under „the Act‟ the privilege of pre-arrest bail. In view of specific embargo of sub-section (2) of Section 76 of „the Act‟, I am of the considered opinion that privilege of pre- arrest bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is not available to the persons on accusation of having committed an offence under „the Act‟.
15. Thus, as there is statutory bar under sub-section (2) of Section 76 of „the Act‟, an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. would not be maintainable, either before this Court or before the court below.
16. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of cases being listed as defect free cases Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26109 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-2017 7/22 before the Court is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that in exercise of judicial discretion, this Court cannot give any direction contrary to the statute or rules made thereunder as it is to be exercised only when there are more than one possible lawful solutions. Simply because the Registry is placing pre-arrest bail applications as defect free cases and pre-arrest bail applications are allowed by some of the Benches, I do not deem it proper to entertain applications under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in the matters in which the accused persons are facing accusation under „the Act‟.
17. To the submissions made by the learned members of the Bar that other co-ordinate benches of this Court have entertained anticipatory bail applications in cases arising out of „the Act‟, I can only say that no order or Judgment passed by any co-ordinate Bench has been brought to my notice where this aspect of maintainability has been addressed. When there is no ambiguity in the language of „the Act‟ which prohibits application of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.in relation to commission of offence under „the Act‟, the same will have to be strictly followed and adhered to by all Courts. The Courts are required to follow law as declared by the competent legislative act or binding precedents and not their breach.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26109 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-20178/22
18. In the present case, since there is accusation against the petitioner of having committed offence under „the Act‟, in my considered opinion, this application is not maintainable. Thus, it is dismissed as not maintainable.
19. Having held so, before parting with this order, I deem it proper to deal with the submissions made by the learned members of the Bar, as it would not be proper for this Court to lightly brush aside the concern expressed by them in the matters arising out of the offences under „the Act‟. They have unanimously canvassed that regular bail applications are being rejected by the courts below mechanically in routine manner, without duly appreciating the triviality of the allegation and the fact that in many cases the accused may be the victim of unavoidable circumstances, beyond their control. The Court cannot shut its eyes and fail to realize the ground realities that large number of cases are being filed before this Court for grant of regular bail in cases arising out of the offences under „the Act‟.
20. The grant or refusal to grant bail in a cognizable and non-bailable offence lies within the discretion of the Court. If a person is arrested for an offence and produced before the Court or he surrenders in a case, which is non-bailable, in that case, the Court on its discretion can grant bail.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26109 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-20179/22
21. The very purpose of bail is to make sure that a person accused of a crime will come to court for proceedings relating to his case even after he is released. Bail is not supposed to be used as punishment. Its objective in criminal cases is to prevent imprisonment of the accused prior to trial while ensuring his appearance at trial. With the Constitution of India, there is one basic rule, i.e. bail and not jail. Some of the exception for it is if the accused is a repeat offender or if there is a dire possibility of him fleeing away from justice or intimidating the witnesses or the crime is grave enough.
22. Chapter XXXIII of the Cr.P.C. deals with provisions as to bail and bonds. The provisions for granting bail by the Magistrate are provided under Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. whereas the provisions for granting bail by the Sessions Judge are provided in Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. They read as under :-
"437. When bail may be taken in case of non- bailable offence.
(1) When any person accused of, or suspected of, the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court or Court of Session, he may be released on bail, but--
(i) such person shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life;Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26109 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-2017 10/22
(ii) such person shall not be so released if such offence is a cognizable offence and he had been previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more, or he had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of a non-bailable and cognizable offence:
Provided that the Court may direct that a person referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) be released on bail if such person is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm:
Provided further that the Court may also direct that a person referred to in clause (ii) be released on bail if it is satisfied that it is just and proper so to do for any other special reason:
Provided also that the mere fact that an accused person may be required for being identified by witnesses during investigation shall not be sufficient ground for refusing to grant bail if he is otherwise entitled to be released on bail and gives an undertaking that the shall comply with such directions as may be given by the Court. (2) If it appears to such officer or Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial as the case may be, that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence, but that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall, subject to the provisions of section 446A and pending such inquiry, be released on bail, or, at the discretion of such officer or Court on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided.
(3) When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub-section (1) the Court may impose any condition which the Court considers Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26109 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-2017 11/22 necessary--
(a) in order to ensure that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter, or
(b) in order to ensure that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or of the commission of which he is suspected, or
(c) otherwise in the interests of justice. (4) An officer or a Court releasing any person on bail under sub-section (1), or sub-section (2), shall record in writing his or its reasons or special reasons for so doing.
(5) Any Court which has released a person on bail under sub-section (1), or sub-section (2), may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to custody. (6) If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs.
(7) If, at any time after the conclusion of the trial of a person accused of a non-bailable offence and before judgment is delivered the Court is of opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of any such offence, it shall release the accused, if he is in custody, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance to hear judgment delivered.
439. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.
(1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct--
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26109 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-201712/22
(a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section;
(b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any person on bail be set aside or modified:
Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice.
(2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody."
23. It would be manifest from reading of Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. that if a person is arrested for an offence and produced before the court or he surrenders in a case, which is non-bailable, and the punishment provided is not life sentence or death, in that case, the court on its discretion can grant bail. So far as the Session Court is concerned, there is no fetter on its power to grant bail to an accused even in a case where punishment is death sentence or life imprisonment.
24. Liberty of a person is of great importance and most Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26109 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-2017 13/22 important fundamental right guaranteed in the Indian Constitution. Grant or refusal of bail to the accused is a matter that has to be dealt with great caution and circumspection.
25. Since applicability of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. has been deleted in relation to offences committed under „the Act‟, if a person is implicated in a false case and is sent to judicial custody, it would cause incalculable harm to his reputation and self esteem. Thus, no remand order should be passed by a Judicial Officer in a routine and mechanical manner. The courts below must exercise their discretion, whether it is under Section 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C., properly, which must appear to be just and reasonable one. It is true that no yardstick is prescribed to exercise the discretion; however, it does not mean that the discretion shall be left to the whims of the court.
26. In a landmark decision in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2012)1 SCC 40], the Supreme Court considered its various judgments laying down basic parameters required to be considered for granting or refusing bail. They can be stated in nutshell as nature of accusations, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behavior, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26109 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-2017 14/22 accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. In Sanjay Chandra (Supra), the Supreme Court dealt with primary purposes of bail when it observed as under :-
"22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un- convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, „necessity‟ is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.
23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.
24. In the instant case, as we have already noticed that the "pointing finger of accusation" against the appellants is "the seriousness of the charge". The offences alleged are economic offences which has resulted in loss to the State exchequer. Though, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26109 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-2017 15/22 they contend that there is possibility of the appellants tampering witnesses, they have not placed any material in support of the allegation. In our view, seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only test or the factor : the other factor that also requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction, both under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would not be balancing the Constitutional Rights but rather "recalibration of the scales of justice."
25. The provisions of Cr.P.C. confer discretionary jurisdiction on Criminal Courts to grant bail to accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions; since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognized, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardize the personal liberty of an individual."
27. In a celebrated judgment of the Supreme Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Ors. Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1978 SC 429], the Supreme Court of India speaking through V.R. Krishna Iyer,J., while highlighting the judicial discretion to grant bail observed as Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26109 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-2017 16/22 under :-
"Bail or jail ?"- at the pre-trial or post- conviction stage-belongs to the blurred area of the criminal justice system and largely binges on the hunch of the bench, otherwise called judicial discretion. The Code is cryptic on this topic and the court prefers to be tacit, be the order custodial or not. And yet, the issue is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitized judicial process. A Chamber judge in this summit court I have to deal with this uncanalised case-flow, ad hoc response to the docket being the flickering candle light. So it is desirable that the subject is disposed of on basic principle, not improvised brevity draped or discretion. Personal liberty, deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognized under Art. 21 that the curial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable, not casually but judicially, with lively concern for the cost to the individual and the community. To glamorize impressionistic orders as discretionary may, on occasions, make a litigative gamble decisive of a fundamental right. After all, personal liberty of an accused or convict is fundamental, suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of 'procedure established by law'. The last four words of Art. 21are the life of that human right.
2. The doctrine of Police Power, constitutionally validates punitive processes for the maintenance of public order, security of the State, national integrity and the interest of the public generally. Even so, having regard to the solemn issue involved, deprivation of personal freedom, ephemeral or enduring, must be founded on the most serious considerations relevant to the welfare objectives of society, specified in the Constitution.
3. What, then, is „judicial discretion‟ in this bail context ? In the elegant words of Benjamin Cardozo, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26109 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-2017 17/22 "The judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to „the primordial necessity of order in the social life‟. Wide enough in all conscience is the, field of discretion that remains."
(The Nature of the Judicial Process-
Yale University Press, (1921)).
Even so it is useful to notice the tart terms of Lord Camden that "the discretion of a judge is the law of tyrants :
it is always unknown, it is different in different men; it is casual, and depends upon constitution, temper and passion. In the best, it is oftentimes caprice; in the worst, it is every vice, folly and passion to which human nature is liable . . ." (1 Bovu. Law Dict., Rawles‟ III Revision p. 885- quoted in Judicial Discretion - National College of the State Judiciary, Reno, Nevada p. 14).
4. Some jurists have regarded the term „judicial discretion‟ as a misnomer. Nevertheless, the vesting of discretion is the unspoken but inescapable, silent command of our judicial system, and those who exercise it will remember that "discretion, when applied to a court of justice, means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not by humor; it must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal and regular."
(Attributed to Lord Mansfield, Tingley v. Dalby, 14 NW 146) "An appeal to a judge‟s discretion is an appeal to his judicial conscience. The discretion must be exercised, not in opposition to, but in accordance with, established principles of law."
(Judicial Discretion, (ibid) p. 33)"
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26109 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-201718/22
28. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand [(1977)4 SCC 308], which related to a case of an appeal filed in the Supreme Court against an order of acquittal passed by the High Court speaking through V.R. Krishna Iyer,J., laid down the principle for bail by holding that the basic rule could perhaps be tersely put as bail not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the accused who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. The Supreme Court clarified that this list was illustrative and not exhaustive. It further held that the gravity of the offence involved must also weigh with the Court when considering the question of bail and likewise the heinousness of the crime should also be taken into account. It was further observed that any possibility of the absconsion or evasion or other abuse could be taken care of by a direction that the accused would report to the police station every fortnight.
29. From the ratio laid down in the decisions of the Supreme Court noted above, it would be evident that grant of bail is the norm except in cases where specific grounds are made out based on which bail can be refused.
30. Looking at the manner in which large number of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26109 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-2017 19/22 cases are being filed in the State of Bihar in matters relating to accusation made under „the Act‟, and subordinate courts as well as this Court are flooded with matters of bail, and regular bail applications are being rejected in many cases in mechanical manner by the courts below, I deem it fit and proper in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of Chapter XXXIII of the Cr.P.C. and of the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. C.B.I. (Supra), Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Ors. Vs. Public Prosecutor (Supra) and State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand (Supra), to highlight the following category of cases, which is not exhaustive but illustrative in which the Judicial Officers in the courts below dealing with the cases under „the Act‟ should normally grant bail to the accused persons on their production by the police or on their surrender :-
I. Where there is allegation of recovery of any offending material from the residence of a person in his absence and there is no element of trade apparent from the accusation, II. Where such material is said to have been recovered/found from public premises which can be accessible to others, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26109 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-2017 20/22 III. Where there is allegation of recovery of any offending material from a vehicle and there is no element of trade of such material appearing from the accusation, IV. Where the offending item/material is/are found buried under the soil in open field, the landlord, V. Where persons are found in inebriated condition only, with no recovery of any offending article, VI. First time offender in possession of such quantity of liquor, which in the opinion of the court is small, VII. Where persons are found in inebriated condition in transit or carrying small quantity of offending article in the opinion of the Court, while crossing the State territory, VIII. Armed forces personnel where there is no element of trade apparent from the accusation, IX. Accusation is based on suspicion without any recovery from his person or his conscious possession, X. Ladies/old or infirm persons, with no criminal antecedent, made accused only on the allegation of being the owner of the house/premises from where, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26109 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-2017 21/22 offending material/liquor is recovered, having no element of trade in such material.
31. In the circumstances enumerated above, bail should be rule and rejection should be an exception. In case of rejection, the learned Judicial Officer will be obliged to assign the special and compelling reason for not finding the case fit for grant of bail.
32. These broad guidelines have been issued only for the purpose of consideration of grant of bail in the cases arising out of the provisions of „the Act‟. Question of diluting any provision of „the Act‟, therefore, does not arise. The discretion of the Judicial Officers dealing with such cases to grant or refuse bail in appropriate case remains intact. The Court expects that they will normally follow these guidelines except in exceptional circumstances.
33. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the application is disposed of.
34. Registry is directed to send copy of the order to all the District & Sessions Judges in the State of Bihar for circulation amongst all the Judicial Officers dealing with the cases under „the Act‟.
35. Having held thus, I direct the learned Registrar General of this Court to direct the Stamp Reporters not to place Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26109 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-2017 22/22 applications filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. arising out of cases under the provisions of „the Act‟ before the Bench, as defect free cases, henceforth.
36. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Registrar General of this Court for strict compliance.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Pradeep/-
U T