Allowed

Rahul Choudhary @Rahul Kumar Choudhary @Rahul Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC5 Sept 2022CR. MISC./20158/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court granted bail to the petitioner in a case involving offences under the IPC and Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, requiring the petitioner to appear after framing of charges and ensuring surety compliance.

What did the court decide?

release on bail after framing of charge by furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties

Rahul Choudhary @Rahul Kumar Choudhary @Rahul Kumar Vs The State of… — Corruption | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20158 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-399 Year-2021 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali

¶3

====================================================== RAHUL CHOUDHARY @RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY @RAHUL KUMAR SON OF BAIDNATH CHAUDHARY R/O- VILLAGETHIKAHAN MATIYA, P.S.- VAISHALI (BELSAR O.P.), DISTRICTVAISHALI

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar BIHAR

¶7

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶8

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

¶9

Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjit Kumar Thakur For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Yogendra Kumar Singh

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶13

3 05-09-2022

¶14

Let the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from today.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶16

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Vaishali (Belsar O.P.) P.S. Case No. 399 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B), 272, 273 of the I.P.C. and Sections 30(a), 32(ii), 36, 41(i) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

¶17

As per prosecution case, there is alleged recovery of 3984.390 litre illicit foreign liquor from the truck as well as pickup van in question and the apprehended co-accused Sonu Kumar and others disclosed the name of the petitioner who fled

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20158 of 2022(3) dt.05-09-2022 2/3

¶19

away from the place of occurrence.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 26.03.2022 and bears criminal antecedent of one case of similar nature. Charge sheet has been submitted in the case and there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence. He further submits that nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner. Petitioner is not apprehended on the spot. Petitioner is neither owner nor driver of alleged vehicle in question. He further submits that co-accused Sonu Kumar who was apprehended on the spot has already been granted bail by the co-ordinate bench of this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 8130 of 2022 and the case of present petitioner stands on better footing.

¶21

The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, period of custody, petitioner is not apprehended on the spot, charge sheet has been submitted in the case and there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence, as submitted and also taking into consideration the material available on record, let the petitioner above named be released on bail, after framing of charge on furnishing bail bond of Rs.

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20158 of 2022(3) dt.05-09-2022 3/3

¶24

20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Excise Court No. II cum Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Vaishali (Belsar O.P.) P.S. Case No. 399 of 2021, subject to following conditions:-

¶25

(i) One of the bailors shall be either father or mother or sister or brother or wife or the person who has sworn the affidavit in bail application.

¶26

(ii) Petitioner will co-operate in trial and will remain present on all dates and absence for two consecutive dates without appropriate permission, would be a ground for cancellation of bail by the learned Trial court itself.

¶27

(iii) 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

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶29

shahzad/-

¶30

U T

Rahul Choudhary @Rahul Kumar Choudhary @Rahul Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Choudhary @Rahul Kumar Choudhary @Rahul Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sinder Singh @ Hari Singh @ Sonu Vs The State of Bihar

Vijay Kumar Kesari @ Vijay Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Chhotelal Mandal Vs the State of Bihar

Jitendra Rai @ Jitendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Shatrughan Singh @ Shatrughan Kumar @ Shatrughan @ Jataha @ Jhtaha Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Devendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar