Patna High Court - Orders
Mahesh Rai @ Mahesh Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 12 December, 2022
Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59813 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-226 Year-2021 Thana- GAIGHAT District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Mahesh Rai @ Mahesh Kumar Yadav Son of Ram Ekbal Rai Resident of
Village - Berua, P.S.- Gaighat, District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhusudan Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 12-12-2022Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 272, 273, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 30(a), 36 and 41(1) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018.
Recovery is of 2619.360 liters of illicit liquor. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59813 of 2022(3) dt.12-12-2022 2/4 the name of the petitioner has been transpired on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused person, namely, Hari Rai. He further submits that except the confessional statement of the co-accused, no other cogent material has come during investigation against the petitioner. He further submits that the recovery has been made from road side and not from petitioner's possession. Therefore, the recovery cannot be attributed to the petitioner. 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 petitioner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory 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. He further submits that the petitioner carries two more cases other than the present one.
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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59813 of 2022(3) dt.12-12-2022 3/4 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.
Considering the aforesaid facts, nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner, 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 the learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with Gaighat P.S. Case No. 226 of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions:-
1. 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 absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
2. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59813 of 2022(3) dt.12-12-2022 4/4 for cancellation of bail.
3. 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 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) Vanisha/-
U T