Justice Rakesh Kumar addressed a joint anticipatory bail petition. The petition for Sunil Sah was dismissed as he had already been arrested. A prayer for anticipatory bail for Muni Rai in an excise offense was allowed.
Petitioner No 2 bail dismissed; Petitioner No 1 granted bail on Rs. 10,000 with two sureties to surrender within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 38153 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-179 Year-2018 Thana- Barahara District- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajiva Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Atul Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER
2. 04-07-2018
At the very outset, Sri Rajiva Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioners, in presence of Sri Atul Chandra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, submits that during pendency of this anticipatory bail petition, petitioners no. 2 namely Sunil Sah has already been arrested and as such, present anticipatory bail petition in respect of petitioner no. 2 has become infructuous.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail petition in respect of petitioner no. 2 (Sunil Sah) stands dismissed as same has become infructuous.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The petitioner no. 1 (Muni Rai), apprehending his arrest in Excise Case No. 802 of 2018, arising out of Barahara
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38153 of 2018(2) dt.04-07-2018 2/3
P.S. Case No. 179 of 2018 registered for offence under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, has prayed for grant of bail in the event of his arrest or surrender.
It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that nothing was recovered from the premises or field of the petitioner no.1, rather in this case, a vehicle was found in a mango orchard, which was taken by one co-accused Nanhu Sah and the petitioner was not having any connection with the said orchard. The petitioner no.1 has been made accused on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused. He further submits that save and except confessional statement, there is no other material to connect petitioner no.1 in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to statement made in paragraph – 3 of the petition to show that petitioner no.1 was never made accused in an offence relating to Excise Act, however; he was earlier made accused in a case registered for offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail petition.
Be that as it may, considering the fact that petitioner’s name has come only in confessional statement, in the event of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38153 of 2018(2) dt.04-07-2018 3/3
his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, let the petitioner no.1 namely Muni Rai be enlarged 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 Special Judge, Excise, Bhojpur, Ara in connection with Excise Case No. 802 of 2018, arising out of Barahara P.S. Case No. 179 of 2018, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.)
anay
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Muni Rai apprehending arrest in an excise case.
How to handle an anticipatory bail petition after one petitioner has already been arrested.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Muni Rai
Sunil Sah
State of Bihar
Rakesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
