Allowed

Mithai Lal v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC22 Mar 2022CR. MISC./1932/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The Court relied on Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar, noting lack of recovery from the petitioner's premises and clean antecedents, ordering release subject to conditions and bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to specified conditions.

Mithai Lal Vs The State of Bihar — Cheque Dishonour | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1932 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-627 Year-2023 Thana- LAKHISARAI District- Lakhisarai

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Ashok Kewat Son of Late Mahadew Kewat, Resident of village - Gangta, Police Station - Amahara, District - Lakhisarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shaukat Alam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP

¶11

======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶13

2 31-01-2024 Heard Mr. Shaukat Alam, the learned counsel for

¶14

the petitioner and Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶15

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in

¶16

connection with Lakhisarai Amhara O.P. PS Case No. 627 of 2023, FIR dated 18.08.2023, registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

¶17

Recovery is of 50 litres of country made liquor.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case on the basis of disclosure made by the local chowkidar and according to the FIR and seizure list, it appears that nothing has been recovered from the house of the

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1932 of 2024(2) dt.31-01-2024 2/4

¶20

petitioner rather the recovery has been made from a bush near the pond and the petitioner has no concern at all with the allegedly recovered liquor. 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.

¶21

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 prearrest bail would not be maintainable.

¶22

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 petitioner.

¶23

Considering the aforesaid facts and the fact that nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner and the petitioner has clean antecedent, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1932 of 2024(2) dt.31-01-2024 3/4

¶25

before the Court below 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) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-IV-cum-Special Excise Court-I, Lakhisarai, where the case is pending in connection with Lakhisarai Amhara O.P. PS Case No. 627 of 2023 , subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and also the following conditions:-

¶26

(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 absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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 criminal antecedent, the Court below shall take step for

¶29

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1932 of 2024(2) dt.31-01-2024 4/4

¶30

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.

¶31

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶32

Shahnawaz/-

¶33

U T

Mithai Lal v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithai Lal v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lullu Goswami @ Lallu Goswami @ Abhishek @ Abhishek Goswami Vs The State of Bihar

Chhotu Khan @ Kaliya Vs The State of Bihar

Vijay Kumar Sah Vs the State of Bihar

Shambhu Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Guddu Kumar Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Ajay Sah @ Dishtu Vs The State of Bihar